Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:09 am  

gutterfax wrote:

other than you being a tight yorkshireman

Careful is the word you're looking for

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:14 am  

Rarebreed wrote:

You being a recent poster on this site felt the absolute need to join, just to slate us off? Particularly when we have just heard that staff are being made redundant, with two of our prizes assets already sold (Bateman and Whitehead) as you like to describe our playing staff. Not to forget the 16 staff who were redundant when in administration, and unless you have faced anything like this in your life (you must have, otherwise where would your bitterness come from) you cannot possibly comment, or expect any respect for your views!

PS Do you mean London?If so hardly a like for like scenario is it?

I've given up replying to morons like this. Every week some Pratt writes a similar letter in the rl papers.

Facts won't work these people are that small minded (evident in their I'll informed groundless ranting) there isn't enough space in their heads to accept it.

Once things settle down at the Bulls and were not in the press anymore they'll go back to gypsies and the welsh

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:19 am  

Is anyone else struggling to see how the 80's concert lost 100 000 pounds?

[Bulliac]

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:23 pm  

You can show anything with figures if you're creative enough. The government has been doing it for years.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:54 pm  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

I've given up replying to morons like this. Every week some Pratt writes a similar letter in the rl papers.

Facts won't work these people are that small minded (evident in their I'll informed groundless ranting) there isn't enough space in their heads to accept it.

Once things settle down at the Bulls and were not in the press anymore they'll go back to gypsies and the welsh

Just to establish who are the morons Maccbull, Do you mean the original poster I replied to, or in fact me!
If it's him then I agree....if it's me, I'll cry myself to sleep (well maybe not)

copy of the original quote I replied to!
1sonnywhakarau wrote:So how many players last time u went tits up did you HAVE to sell. If you had sold your prize assets like club have done recently you wouldnt have needed bailing out and now would have been on full sky money. So dont cry the victim

[Bulliac]

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:01 pm  

If I were Sonny Whakarau, as in the real NZ international whose name has been taken and abused, I think I'd be contemplating legal action.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:43 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

Just to establish who are the morons Maccbull, Do you mean the original poster I replied to, or in fact me!
If it's him then I agree....if it's me, I'll cry myself to sleep (well maybe not)

copy of the original quote I replied to!
1sonnywhakarau wrote:So how many players last time u went tits up did you HAVE to sell. If you had sold your prize assets like club have done recently you wouldnt have needed bailing out and now would have been on full sky money. So dont cry the victim

To clarify I meant the original poster ha ha

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:57 am  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

Is anyone else struggling to see how the 80's concert lost 100 000 pounds?

I'm not!
I questioned the announced "targeted" ticket sales and the 48% achievement of these, together with Mr Whitcut and Mr Moore's reliance on Belinda and Rick for 2014 onwards........I was shouted down!
Altergever Now....can we hear you BRADFOOOOOOOOOORD......
Neva gonna give you up..............................

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:50 am  

People get ultra sanctimonious about a something and nothing post re: redundancies yet overt, purposeful trolling passes un-mentioned.

All those who 'don't post anymore' be careful what you wish for.

Re: Cutting the £400,000 : Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:53 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

yet overt, purposeful trolling passes un-mentioned.

Probably because most people have hidden said troll's posts. I'd be surprised if any semi-regular could see Gutterfax's posts for example.