Viking Supporters Co-operative

Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 01:22:58 am

Title: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 01:22:58 am
Hate to say it, but I'm afraid the players have taken their foot off the gas because they think they can get away with it because Flynn is a 'nice' bloke. You've got to be a hard bas**rd to be a manager and Flynn is not one of those. This is going to end very badly.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Filo on February 10, 2013, 01:30:29 am
Mystic Mick eh?

was n`t your last prophecy we were going to be relegated by Christmas?
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: RedJ on February 10, 2013, 01:33:14 am
He makes a good point that the lads seem to have taken their foot off the gas a bit, though.

It seems that way, at least.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 01:50:35 am
Quote
Mystic mjdgreg eh?

was n`t your last prophecy we were going to be relegated by Christmas?

No. It was that Saunders would be gone by Christmas. A prediction that wasn't far off the mark.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Chris on February 10, 2013, 02:36:11 am
Far too soon to jump to these conclusions. Does anyone remember Mick's posts during O'Driscoll's time here? I can't, but I wonder if he's ever backed any of our managers?
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Red wizard on February 10, 2013, 12:45:09 pm
He did say Flynn was a great choice for manager the other week.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 01:01:53 pm
Quote
He did say Flynn was a great choice for manager the other week.

Thank you. I've only ever had a problem with Saunders. Looks like he's started to work his magic at Wolves.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: wilts rover on February 10, 2013, 01:10:36 pm
Given that your opening post is attacking the character (of someone you probably know as well as I do) then are you saying you were wrong to support Flynn or that you now have a problem with him after two weeks?
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: DaveOfDonny on February 10, 2013, 01:17:25 pm
Is it possible for anyone  to have an opinion on this forum without getting shot down?
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 01:22:17 pm
No. It's just a feeling I have. He has my full support. He should be given until the end of next season before any judgements can be made. I'm sure JR will sort out this 'weakness' if indeed my feelings prove to be correct. 
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Lifelong supporter on February 10, 2013, 01:39:20 pm
He won't get to the end of next season if we don't go up.
JR will sort out the 'weakness' you seem to have somehow uncovered by adopting Plan B and bring in Adkins, if still available, or Robins during the summer.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Glyn_Wigley on February 10, 2013, 01:39:42 pm
But what have been his possession stats?

 :chair:
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: RoversAlias on February 10, 2013, 05:16:38 pm
You have to be a hard bas**rd to be a good manager do you?

Sean O'Driscoll: Hardest man on earth.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 05:33:06 pm
Quote
You have to be a hard b*****d to be a good manager do you?

Sean O'Driscoll: Hardest man on earth.

I wouldn't quite go that far but yes he was a hard task master.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 05:35:04 pm
Quote
But what have been his possession stats?

I did post some stats but the thread got removed almost immediately.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: dickos1 on February 10, 2013, 06:03:52 pm
We've dominated possession the last 2 games, dominated.
And we've lost them both, I think you even realise now that the shite you posted under Saunders was exactly that. Shite
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 06:06:25 pm
It's no good having loads of possession if you don't use it properly. However I do think it is a step in the right direction and hope Flynn is given the time to bring in the right type of players that can use possession effectively.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Glyn_Wigley on February 10, 2013, 06:07:44 pm
Quote
But what have been his possession stats?

I did post some stats but the thread got removed almost immediately.


And it mentioned nothing about possession.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 06:21:57 pm
It is well known on this forum that I think possession is very important. However the overwhelming view of the rest of the forum seems to be that possession is neither here nor there. Therefore I have decided not to post possession stats any more as they are clearly of no interest to the vast majority.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Glyn_Wigley on February 10, 2013, 06:32:52 pm
What the rest of the forum thinks has never bothered you before!
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 06:37:51 pm
Quote
What the rest of the forum thinks has never bothered you before!

Even I with my pugnacious debating style have to admit defeat eventually on certain subjects. No-one could accuse me though of not doing a valiant job on the possession issue against overwhelming odds.

It's not my fault if my point of view is always right and most of the rest of the posters keep getting it wrong.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Glyn_Wigley on February 10, 2013, 06:50:59 pm
I think you'll find that putting your fingers in your ears whilst going 'la la la la la la la' is not a generally accepted sign of pugnacity.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: dickos1 on February 10, 2013, 07:17:01 pm
You've been proven wrong many many times. Saunders left us in a superb position, you predicted relegation.
You can't get anymore wrong if you tried
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: DonnyNoel on February 10, 2013, 07:28:19 pm
You've been proven wrong many many times. Saunders left us in a superb position, you predicted relegation.
You can't get anymore wrong if you tried

Don't challenge him! ;)
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: wilts rover on February 10, 2013, 07:44:41 pm
Quote
What the rest of the forum thinks has never bothered you before!

Even I with my pugnacious debating style have to admit defeat eventually on certain subjects. No-one could accuse me though of not doing a valiant job on the possession issue against overwhelming odds.

It's not my fault if my point of view is always right and most of the rest of the posters keep getting it wrong.

Is it possible for anyone  to have an opinion on this forum without getting shot down?

Of course it is if the poster is actually interested in having a serious debate and positive contribution towards the forum..........however some posters are only interested in being a WUM/troll and should not be let within 100 yards of a keyboard.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 10, 2013, 10:28:34 pm
Quote
Is it possible for anyone  to have an opinion on this forum without getting shot down?

It's very difficult, especially if your name is mjdgreg and you are not a sheep and actually post what you believe no matter what the other posters think. There seems to be some sort of vendetta against me just because I speak my mind in a pugnacious manner and won't be cowed by others with a different point of view.

I welcome any view that is expressed even though the majority don't agree with me. I thought debate was all about discussing different views and not all singing from the same hymn sheet. That would be very boring, and boring I am not (or modest).
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: BobG on February 10, 2013, 11:24:12 pm
It is Mick. And I would welcome you with open arms on the day you start to practice it.

BobG
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: silent majority on February 10, 2013, 11:50:15 pm
Quote
But what have been his possession stats?

I did post some stats but the thread got removed almost immediately.


Mick,

I've been searching the deleted threads file (we keep a copy obviously) but there isn't a single thread of yours in there about stats and possession with reference to Brian Flynn. Let me repeat that, not a single one!! If you must spread absolute tripe at least try and not get found out at the first hurdle. Amateur!

Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: BillyStubbsTears on February 11, 2013, 12:31:04 am
Quote
But what have been his possession stats?

I did post some stats but the thread got removed almost immediately.


Mick,

I've been searching the deleted threads file (we keep a copy obviously) but there isn't a single thread of yours in there about stats and possession with reference to Brian Flynn. Let me repeat that, not a single one!! If you must spread absolute trip at least try and not get found out at the first hurdle. Amateur!



Phew!

Mad Mick making stuff up? Never in the memory of man.

What's the date? Somebody write it down.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 11, 2013, 09:36:55 am
Quote
mjdgreg

I've been searching the deleted threads file (we keep a copy obviously) but there isn't a single thread of yours in there about stats and possession with reference to Brian Flynn. Let me repeat that, not a single one!! If you must spread absolute tripe at least try and not get found out at the first hurdle. Amateur!

Wrong. The tread was titled 'Key Stats From Yesterday'. I suggest you speak to Mr Wigley. I suspect he removed it. When I mentioned the fact that I had started a thread about stats he posted the following:

Quote
But what have been his possession stats?

Quote
I did post some stats but the thread got removed almost immediately.


Quote
And it mentioned nothing about possession.

I've highlighted Mr Wigley's comments in bold. So as you can see he is fully aware of the so called fictitious thread. He is correct that I didn't mention anything about possession but then again I never claimed to have done.

I suggest in future that maybe a discussion between the moderators needs to be held before the draconian act of removing a thread for no good reason is taken. I always thought this forum was very tolerant of people's views ( even though you have locked a good number of my threads) but am now starting to feel that onerous censorship is starting to become the order of the day.

I await your an abject apology that will be accepted immediately so we can put this sorry matter behind us.   
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Belle-Vue-Ghost on February 11, 2013, 09:43:37 am
 :lol: Almost crying at my desk here - what a thread  :lol:
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 11, 2013, 09:45:31 am
Quote
Phew!

mjdgreg making stuff up? Never in the memory of man.

What's the date? Somebody write it down.

Your abject apology will also be accepted immediately.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: mjdgreg on February 11, 2013, 09:46:31 am
Quote
The Date 1066

Your abject apology will also be accepted immediately.
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: Filo on February 11, 2013, 11:36:45 am
Quote
mjdgreg

I've been searching the deleted threads file (we keep a copy obviously) but there isn't a single thread of yours in there about stats and possession with reference to Brian Flynn. Let me repeat that, not a single one!! If you must spread absolute tripe at least try and not get found out at the first hurdle. Amateur!

Wrong. The tread was titled 'Key Stats From Yesterday'. I suggest you speak to Mr Wigley. I suspect he removed it. When I mentioned the fact that I had started a thread about stats he posted the following:

Quote
But what have been his possession stats?

Quote
I did post some stats but the thread got removed almost immediately.


Quote
And it mentioned nothing about possession.

I've highlighted Mr Wigley's comments in bold. So as you can see he is fully aware of the so called fictitious thread. He is correct that I didn't mention anything about possession but then again I never claimed to have done.

I suggest in future that maybe a discussion between the moderators needs to be held before the draconian act of removing a thread for no good reason is taken. I always thought this forum was very tolerant of people's views ( even though you have locked a good number of my threads) but am now starting to feel that onerous censorship is starting to become the order of the day.

I await your an abject apology that will be accepted immediately so we can put this sorry matter behind us.   



Quote
The tread was titled 'Key Stats From Yesterday'. I suggest you speak to Mr Wigley. I suspect he removed it.


Wrong, again, I`m sure Mr Wigley will accept your abject apology, he was n`t even online when I removed it, and for the record I removed it because I`m sick to the back teeth of your intentional wind up posts, as I`m sure many others are on this forum, you`re taking the piss and you know it, you`ve had more slack than most on here, be grateful for that, you`ve ruined Off Topic, I`ll be damned if you`re going to ruin the main forum as well!

That`s my opinion, I have n`t consulted with any other Mod, they may have different views, I don`t know, but as far as I`m concerned being a WUM on the main forum puts you on thin ice!
Title: Re: Flynn's too soft
Post by: wilts rover on February 11, 2013, 12:51:37 pm
Quote
mjdgreg

I've been searching the deleted threads file (we keep a copy obviously) but there isn't a single thread of yours in there about stats and possession with reference to Brian Flynn. Let me repeat that, not a single one!! If you must spread absolute tripe at least try and not get found out at the first hurdle. Amateur!

Wrong. The tread was titled 'Key Stats From Yesterday'. I suggest you speak to Mr Wigley. I suspect he removed it. When I mentioned the fact that I had started a thread about stats he posted the following:

Quote
But what have been his possession stats?

Quote
I did post some stats but the thread got removed almost immediately.


Quote
And it mentioned nothing about possession.

I've highlighted Mr Wigley's comments in bold. So as you can see he is fully aware of the so called fictitious thread. He is correct that I didn't mention anything about possession but then again I never claimed to have done.

I suggest in future that maybe a discussion between the moderators needs to be held before the draconian act of removing a thread for no good reason is taken. I always thought this forum was very tolerant of people's views ( even though you have locked a good number of my threads) but am now starting to feel that onerous censorship is starting to become the order of the day.

I await your an abject apology that will be accepted immediately so we can put this sorry matter behind us.   


A thread about 'Key Stats' that didn't mention possession, oh really? Did your three stopwatches break or was there another reason (other than we had 65% possession and lost) for why you didn't include it oh great oracle?