whatevertrevor

I would do anything to save my club, but I draw line at a wet bottom.

Woah Nelly.

A return to form for the gaffer.

Because Hove and Brighton are still two distinct places, and pre existed the combined city, but the city is Brighton and Hove. The Amex is at the very eastern edge of Brighton. Hove is to the west of Brighton.

He's changed his name to 'Guest lurkingowl'.

I don't think they'll be any arguments or fights, and I think it will be taken part in by 100% of away fans.

Good idea though.

We are going to be REALLY late to our seats.

I'm choosing to gloss over that headline

That's a good and probably crucial point.

Wishful thinking, but I'm on board with this.

Custer's last stand. Brings a tear to the eye.

That didn't happen though at first. You aren't seeing the key difference between A) moaning about the journalist/journalists in general And B) discussing whether the info the journalist has received from a source is likely to be correct or not. Discussing B isn't derailing the thread. It isn't attacking Nixon. Nixon SHOULD post the info he receives, that's great. I support him doing that! The info might not be right but that doesn't mean he is wrong. He received the info from a source.

Ok, understood. I'm amazed that Chansiri definitely still wants 100m for the club.

Understood.

So what is the discussion here? A)Is Chansiri really still asking for 100m for the club, as per Nixon's post? Or, B) we can only discuss whether 100m is fair or not etc, without discussing whether it's definitely true or not? Discussing option A is not allowed as that is derailing the topic as that discusses whether Nixon might have the wrong info? That doesn't make sense.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you re: ignoring the post just to attack the source. But in this case, how do you dicsuss the content of the OP without mentioning Nixon? Do we just talk about the fact that Chansiri 'still wants 100m', as if it were fact? See what I mean? In cases like this discussing the source goes hand in hand with discussing what the source has written.

But the discussion could/should include the likelihood of Nixon being right or wrong. That's the basis of the discussion in fact.

I'm not sure that works in this case? The thread topic is about Nixon writing that. So the source needs to weighed up. Otherwise we just discuss 'Chansiri still wants 100m' as though it's a fact.

It's 'Bannon' isn't it??

This gif represents someone in this thread. I don't think I need to elaborate.

I yearn for the heady days of July 2024. Everything was going so brilliantly.

Sorry, which person do you refer to?

Nobody has said they wouldn't want him to take over. Well, maybe one person did. Why do these fake arguments always happen? They WANT people and their virtue-signalling/leftie/bleeding heart views to rail against, so when they don't transpire you just rail against those views anyway. Or sometimes ONE person will state that view and they'll jump in with the 'bunch of' this and 'the something brigade' that.

How much you want for the car mate?