lucretius

Admin
  • Content count

    3,403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    73

lucretius last won the day on February 19

lucretius had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About lucretius

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,665 profile views
  1. Prenton Park. It's Tranmere Rovers's home ground, just across the river from Liverpool. They play in the 5th tier, so below League 2, but they used to be a fairly big lower league club. It's hard to tell what's worse; the pitch or our play. Disappointing about Butt. He was a very good player tactically, so you'd expect him to be able to manage well.
  2. No, I've no proof, just like I've no proof that we landed on the moon or that Al Capone was a gangster, but there's a shitload of evidence for them. Logically there are only two places it could have come from. I've told you why one of them won't have happened, and we know that it always leaks out in Mourinho's case. I've explained it, and provided my evidence. I've no more invented it than someone who explains any other occurence. Did I invent that the leak came from once of those sources? No. That's simply logically true. Did I invent the reasons why it wouldn't have come from the club? No, there are legal and regulatory reasons that you can see for yourself. Did I invent that Mourinho's previous moves have leaked? No, you can read them for yourself. What part of that did I invent? You are choosing to believe something, against the evidence, and would wager a lot of money on it being right, rather than that admit what the evidence shows. When Pep leaks his next move while the previous manager is still employed and in the middle of celebrating a cup win, I'll call him classless too. Bold it, quote it, do what you like. You literally said that I couldn't wait to put the boot in if it was Jose. Yet I had the opportunity to, and didn't. The timescale matters only in as much as you brought it up. We're still waiting for me to put the boot in on Mourinho for the same thing. You are objectively wrong. And you're inventing things. Pep says something similar to what? You said that I would attack Jose for the same thing. I didn't. It would be really simple for you to prove that you're right, because there would be evidence of me sticking the boot into Jose after the derby. I would be frothing at the mouth. You would have a quote. Something. Anything. Unless you just invented this? Parse your argument out logically: 1) Lucretius has double standards and is a hypocrite. 2) Lucretius would put the boot into into Mourinho for something he didn't criticise Pep doing. He won't be able to wait and will be frothing at the mouth. 3) Pep was involved in mixed zone antics after the Wigan game. 4) Mourinho was involved in mixed zone antics after the derby 5) Given 1 and 2, Lucretius will have criticised Mourinho after 4, and not have criticised Pep after 3. Yet there is no evidence to support 5. If your argument doesn't work logically it is, like in this case, bollocks. I stand by what I've said about Mourinho. If Pep gouges someone's eye, you can watch me criticise it. If Pep calls himself a special one, you can watch me criticise that. Ok, so you don't invent things, you're just a journalist that spreads false quotes about people they don't like. Still waiting on you showing what I invented, too.
  3. It should be really easy. You said: So we had tunnel antics after the derby. I would apparently be frothing at the mouth over this. Where are my comments frothing at the mouth about it? Again, we had tunnel antics after the derby. Where are my comments putting the boot in over it? If I would have leapt at the chance, they should be there. You were on here less than half an hour after the match getting the boot in. It's been two months since the derby. Which of us leapt Where's the double standard? I reacted the same way to both incidents. How's that hypocritical? Again, we have two incidents in the mixed area, one involving Pep, one involving Mourinho. One of us has treated them differently, the other has treated them the same. One of those is a double standard, the other isn't. Should Mourinho have been banned? What about the pizza throwing in 2004? No bans handed out there? Why should Pep be banned for something other people weren't? Which one of us is the double-standard using hypocrite here? This is a really simple thing to show. You argue that I have a double standard, and that in a similar situation I couldn't have waited to put the boot in to Mourinho. Yet such a similar situation exists, and I didn't put the boot into Mourinho. I treated both incidents the same, while you're calling for a ban despite not calling for Mourinho to be banned. Your argument is objectively false. You can't show me calling for Mourinho to be banned and staying silent about Pep. It's not a link I've created. When an agreement was made for Mourinho to take over as manager, two parties knew: the club, and Mourinho's camp. For that information to have leaked into the public domain, it had to come from one of those parties. Someone at the club would be risking a (n at least) six figure salary, their job, their ability to work for a publically traded company, a criminal record, and possible jail time. So where did it come from? There's not much evidence of people at publically traded companies leaking market sensitive information. Those drawbacks are designed to not make it worth their while, and so it's not a common occurence. However, Mourinho's moves to Chelsea (both times), Inter, Madrid, and Utd were all leaked to the press before the move. So it's a pretty common occurence with him. We're the only club of those where legal obligations would prevent the release of market sensitive information, yet it still occured. You were willing to wage a lot of money on it being the case that the club leaked it. Why is that? Where is your rationale, your evidence? It's pretty clear that this is something that happens with Mourinho. It's pretty clear that it's a huge risk for someone at the club to take. So why are you so sure of it? Your argument relies on someone from the club ignoring their responsibilities, breaking the law, risking losing their job, for questionable benefit, to achieve something that has happened anyway every time he's moved jobs. Mine relies on the same thing that happened every time he's moved jobs and used the one common factor to explain it. You were happy enough about the story until it became criticism of Mourinho. When it was first leaked you said: Then when it was used to criticise Mourinho, suddenly your opinion changed. Not only did you not think it was true and leaked by Mourinho, you started looking at how you could discredit the story: A few pages back, you shared a post using a quote that Pep never said to criticise him. Remind me, who has a double standard? Who just invents things?
  4. Champions League 2017/18

    Azpilicueta, normally a rock.
  5. Champions League 2017/18

    Unreal how confident Barca are playing it out of defence
  6. Cool, I'll wait until the morning and then I'll accept an apology. I've done the legwork to double check I didn't say anything but I'll happily concede if you can prove me wrong. Your defence of acting like a RAWKite was literally 'You would have done it if it was Mourinho'. We have an example of Mourinho doing something pretty similar. So where's me putting the boot in? I criticised neither Mourinho nor Pep. You were on here within minutes criticising Pep, nothing about Mourinho. Which of those is hypocritical? Which shows double standards? You're still running with the inventing a story line? Funny, you never replied when I asked you: 'Someone at the club accepts money, for no other tangible benefit, to release information that would cost them their job, ability to work in a publically traded company, and put them in jail. The people privy to this information would be on director level salaries, big six-figure numbers, and they would be willing to risk all this for a little bit more money from a journalist. Someone from camp Mourinho, which has leaked every single one of his preceding management jobs before he was announced, leaks his next management job before he was announced. You would really be willing to wager quite a bit of money on the first one being accurate?' I'll take an apology on that, too. That was also the same post you didn't reply to, when you decided that the Duncan Castles story about Pogba training against club advice (which at the time you said may as well have come from Mourinho himself) was actually a hack job, since it was being used against Mourinho. Weirdly, this was all over the Scholes criticism about Pogba in a midfield two, over which you took Mourinho's side, and which is now widely accepted as legitimate.
  7. Champions League 2017/18

    Conte has finally realised that Cahill is a massive liability. With Paulinho, Busquets, and Rakitic all selected, do you not think it'll be three in the middle?
  8. Go on, we have a backstage fracas from earlier this season that Mourinho was involved in. If your argument holds up, I should have leapt at the opportunity to get the boot in, and you should be able to prove it pretty easily.
  9. So you can point to me criticising Mourinho's antics after the derby, maybe find me putting the boot in?
  10. What's there to comment on? You posted an edited clip that showed part of the incident because it demonstrates his 'mask slipping'. Manager telling other manager to fuck off out of the face of his goalkeeper is less compelling a headline, but that's what happened. I made less of a deal about Mourinho's actions after the City defeat, while you couldn't wait to get on here and remind everyone how Mourinho is victimised.
  11. They spat at each other, and both got the same ban. Cisse's was extended because he'd already had a violent conduct charge that season. 30 seconds could have cleared that up and saved you looking like RAWK's finest.
  12. It's City, and they've above us in the table. Now we have to be small-time and start ranting about conspiracies and calling for their players to be banned. It's actually illegal for fans to be on the pitch in the first place under section 4 of the Football Offences Act 1991. He'll get a ban of at least several years, and if it's determined that he spat on Aguero then probably a lifetime ban and a fine. Very few people would tolerate somebody invading their personal space and spitting on them, particularly at work.
  13. Can't we just go back to complaining about them having loads of money? I feel we're on safer ground there.
  14. While I'm sure they could contain the dozen or so City fans who turned up, it's pretty difficult to stop thousands of people running on to the pitch without specialist equipment.
  15. Aguero guilty of pushing someone who had no right to be there away from him, and had grabbed hold of him (and allegedly spat on him). Better blame Pep and claim an FA conspiracy. RAWKworthy stuff.