Everton v City of Swansea

Page 1 of 12 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Everton v City of Swansea

Post  KoelJagz on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 9:01 am

We return to Goodison Park fortress after two tough games, one a draw we should have lost and another draw we should have won. It can be tough to stomach a late draw like the one we suffered at Bournemouth but for lightening to strike twice is sickening to say the least. Once again the media have come out to bemoan Martinez lack of 'game management' rather then sympathise with a clear offside. With each passing week, the dream of 4th place moves further away as a clearly talented but vulnerable squad falls by the managers noble crusade to play the game out rather then shut down and kill it. Something that may bare fruit in several seasons after he is long sacked and we are playing in League One. The visit of a poor Swansea should in theory off us some welcome respite and 3 points but nothing is certain with this Everton team. McCarthy and Coleman may return but most like to be rested for League Cup. Naismith has sadly but probably correctly moved on to Norwich. Mirallas has surely done enough from his last few appearances to continue to play ahead of Kone.

Prediction: 3-1


Last edited by Bluejagz on Wed 20 Jan 2016, 1:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
The Liverpool was again a heartless equipment, without ideas nor criterion. A victim who died yesterday at the hands of her eternal rival, the Everton.
avatar
KoelJagz

Number of posts : 26770
Age : 38
Location : Belfast Nord Iron
Registration date : 2006-01-22

View user profile http://www.cardboardboxes.ie/

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Cahill the Great on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 10:21 am

Bluejagz wrote:We return to Goodison Park fortress after two tough games, one a draw we should have lost and another draw we should have won. It can be tough to stomach a late draw like the one we suffered at Bournemouth but for lightening to strike twice is sickening to say the least. Once again the media have come out to bemoan Martinez lack of 'game management' rather then sympathise with a clear offside. With each passing week, the dream of 4th place moves further away as a clearly talented but vulnerable squad falls by the managers noble crusade to play the game out rather then shut down and kill it. Something that may bare fruit in several seasons after he is long sacked and we are playing in League One. The visit of a poor Swansea should in theory off us some welcome respite and 3 points but nothing is certain with this Everton team. McCarthy and Coleman may return but most like to be rested for League Cup. Naismith has sadly but probably correctly moved on to Norwich. Mirallas has surely done enough from his last few appearances to continue to play ahead of Kone.

Prediction: 3-1

He was brilliant against Chelsea. If he doesn't start then I'll be baffled.
avatar
Cahill the Great

Number of posts : 3504
Age : 39
Location : London
Registration date : 2006-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  bluefaze on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 10:54 am

should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail

bluefaze

Number of posts : 13
Age : 117
Registration date : 2014-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Made 4 Gwladys on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 10:55 am

supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing
avatar
Made 4 Gwladys

Number of posts : 32769
Age : 58
Location : between tax havens
Registration date : 2005-10-17

View user profile http://www.doogle.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 11:04 am

Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing

Ha ha ha. Indeed it should be Swansea City, although I would politely point out that a precedence has been previously set that prevents action being taken against myself.

If you refer to the sixth post in the recent match thread relating to the match against Stoke City, then you will note that I made precisely the same point. On this occasion, no favourable snitching judgement was made. As this is the most recent example of such a snitching attempt, it is therefore concluded that the precedence was set and that we can only agree that it is now acceptable for the initiator of a Match Thread to omit team name suffixes.

Bearing in mind all of this detail, you will understand my deliberate choice to not raise Bluejagz' omission on this occasion.

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Made 4 Gwladys on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 11:26 am

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing

Ha ha ha. Indeed it should be Swansea City, although I would politely point out that a precedence has been previously set that prevents action being taken against myself.

If you refer to the sixth post in the recent match thread relating to the match against Stoke City, then you will note that I made precisely the same point. On this occasion, no favourable snitching judgement was made. As this is the most recent example of such a snitching attempt, it is therefore concluded that the precedence was set and that we can only agree that it is now acceptable for the initiator of a Match Thread to omit team name suffixes.

Bearing in mind all of this detail, you will understand my deliberate choice to not raise Bluejagz' omission on this occasion.
Sounds totally plausible to me, but we'll have to see what supersnitcher... I mean Da Judge has to say about the matter Very Happy
avatar
Made 4 Gwladys

Number of posts : 32769
Age : 58
Location : between tax havens
Registration date : 2005-10-17

View user profile http://www.doogle.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Da Judge on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 11:36 am

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing

Ha ha ha. Indeed it should be Swansea City, although I would politely point out that a precedence has been previously set that prevents action being taken against myself.

If you refer to the sixth post in the recent match thread relating to the match against Stoke City, then you will note that I made precisely the same point. On this occasion, no favourable snitching judgement was made. As this is the most recent example of such a snitching attempt, it is therefore concluded that the precedence was set and that we can only agree that it is now acceptable for the initiator of a Match Thread to omit team name suffixes.

Bearing in mind all of this detail, you will understand my deliberate choice to not raise Bluejagz' omission on this occasion.

I realise that you must have been very busy completing the 'parole' report on the defendant named Super and his suspended sentence. The court would like to know when it will required to sit to hear closing arguments on the matter.

With respect to the matter of this thread you are right precedence may appear to have been set - but it is for the court to decide - you can merely indicate the belief that it has been set. Impersonation of a court officer (even as a different court officer) is a serious transgression and an allegation not to be taken lightly.

For instance the initial precedence (and one never raised was earlier in the season for the trip to the Hawthorns). If I had been the appointed snitcher I would have reminded everyone that there is an Albion and that is not up north where Scotland now resides... but not wishing to impersonate another office I kept quiet counsel.

avatar
Da Judge

Number of posts : 8351
Age : 56
Location : Hungary/Switzerland/Czech Republic/Ireland/US & UK
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=nyy

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Made 4 Gwladys on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 12:09 pm

Da Judge wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing

Ha ha ha. Indeed it should be Swansea City, although I would politely point out that a precedence has been previously set that prevents action being taken against myself.

If you refer to the sixth post in the recent match thread relating to the match against Stoke City, then you will note that I made precisely the same point. On this occasion, no favourable snitching judgement was made. As this is the most recent example of such a snitching attempt, it is therefore concluded that the precedence was set and that we can only agree that it is now acceptable for the initiator of a Match Thread to omit team name suffixes.

Bearing in mind all of this detail, you will understand my deliberate choice to not raise Bluejagz' omission on this occasion.

I realise that you must have been very busy completing the 'parole' report on the defendant named Super and his suspended sentence. The court would like to know when it will required to sit to hear closing arguments on the matter.

With respect to the matter of this thread you are right precedence may appear to have been set - but it is for the court to decide - you can merely indicate the belief that it has been set. Impersonation of a court officer (even as a different court officer) is a serious transgression and an allegation not to be taken lightly.

For instance the initial precedence (and one never raised was earlier in the season for the trip to the Hawthorns). If I had been the appointed snitcher I would have reminded everyone that there is an Albion and that is not up north where Scotland now resides... but not wishing to impersonate another office I kept quiet counsel.

so... in English.. are you going to nail the nasty snidy guilty grass... or not... not trying to sway you either way of course.

allegedly
avatar
Made 4 Gwladys

Number of posts : 32769
Age : 58
Location : between tax havens
Registration date : 2005-10-17

View user profile http://www.doogle.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 12:16 pm

Da Judge wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing

Ha ha ha. Indeed it should be Swansea City, although I would politely point out that a precedence has been previously set that prevents action being taken against myself.

If you refer to the sixth post in the recent match thread relating to the match against Stoke City, then you will note that I made precisely the same point. On this occasion, no favourable snitching judgement was made. As this is the most recent example of such a snitching attempt, it is therefore concluded that the precedence was set and that we can only agree that it is now acceptable for the initiator of a Match Thread to omit team name suffixes.

Bearing in mind all of this detail, you will understand my deliberate choice to not raise Bluejagz' omission on this occasion.

I realise that you must have been very busy completing the 'parole' report on the defendant named Super and his suspended sentence. The court would like to know when it will required to sit to hear closing arguments on the matter.

With respect to the matter of this thread you are right precedence may appear to have been set - but it is for the court to decide - you can merely indicate the belief that it has been set. Impersonation of a court officer (even as a different court officer) is a serious transgression and an allegation not to be taken lightly.

Final defence: I also deny that I have been impersonating a court officer.

I have simply, yet strongly and effectively, asserted my beliefs that a precedence has undoubtedly been set and that this precedence alone affected my behaviour with regards to this non-offence. If my response has been interpreted as impersonating a court officer, then this has only occurred only as a direct result of my need to passionately defend myself against the original unfair and unjust accusations which I was aghast to read initially.

I strongly deny having used stronger terminology than anyone being represented in a court would do, nor have I at any point declared any kind of final ruling.

Therefore the only sensible conclusion one can reach is to find me not guilty of each and every one of the unfounded and unreasonable allegations made.

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 12:19 pm

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Da Judge wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing

Ha ha ha. Indeed it should be Swansea City, although I would politely point out that a precedence has been previously set that prevents action being taken against myself.

If you refer to the sixth post in the recent match thread relating to the match against Stoke City, then you will note that I made precisely the same point. On this occasion, no favourable snitching judgement was made. As this is the most recent example of such a snitching attempt, it is therefore concluded that the precedence was set and that we can only agree that it is now acceptable for the initiator of a Match Thread to omit team name suffixes.

Bearing in mind all of this detail, you will understand my deliberate choice to not raise Bluejagz' omission on this occasion.

I realise that you must have been very busy completing the 'parole' report on the defendant named Super and his suspended sentence. The court would like to know when it will required to sit to hear closing arguments on the matter.

With respect to the matter of this thread you are right precedence may appear to have been set - but it is for the court to decide - you can merely indicate the belief that it has been set. Impersonation of a court officer (even as a different court officer) is a serious transgression and an allegation not to be taken lightly.

Final defence: I also deny that I have been impersonating a court officer.

I have simply, yet strongly and effectively, asserted my beliefs that a precedence has undoubtedly been set and that this precedence alone affected my behaviour with regards to this non-offence. If my response has been interpreted as impersonating a court officer, then this has only occurred only as a direct result of my need to passionately defend myself against the original unfair and unjust accusations which I was aghast to read initially.

I strongly deny having used stronger terminology than anyone being represented in a court would do, nor have I at any point declared any kind of final ruling.

Therefore the only sensible conclusion one can reach is to find me not guilty of each and every one of the unfounded and unreasonable allegations made.

Is there time to mention the negative impact this ridiculous allegation has had on my entire family and the unnecessary suffering caused?

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 12:37 pm

Da Judge wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing

Ha ha ha. Indeed it should be Swansea City, although I would politely point out that a precedence has been previously set that prevents action being taken against myself.

If you refer to the sixth post in the recent match thread relating to the match against Stoke City, then you will note that I made precisely the same point. On this occasion, no favourable snitching judgement was made. As this is the most recent example of such a snitching attempt, it is therefore concluded that the precedence was set and that we can only agree that it is now acceptable for the initiator of a Match Thread to omit team name suffixes.

Bearing in mind all of this detail, you will understand my deliberate choice to not raise Bluejagz' omission on this occasion.

I realise that you must have been very busy completing the 'parole' report on the defendant named Super and his suspended sentence. The court would like to know when it will required to sit to hear closing arguments on the matter.

With respect to the matter of this thread you are right precedence may appear to have been set - but it is for the court to decide - you can merely indicate the belief that it has been set. Impersonation of a court officer (even as a different court officer) is a serious transgression and an allegation not to be taken lightly.

For instance the initial precedence (and one never raised was earlier in the season for the trip to the Hawthorns). If I had been the appointed snitcher I would have reminded everyone that there is an Albion and that is not up north where Scotland now resides... but not wishing to impersonate another office I kept quiet counsel.


I note that this has been edited since I initially replied, so I trust that you would agree it only fair to allow me to respond to the final paragraph.

My appointment as snitcher only came after snitching on Super (otherwise known as supersnitcher) for prematurely starting the Merry Christmas thread two days early on December 23rd, 2015.

As the West Bromwich Albion FC match was played on Monday 28th September, 2015, this was well outside my remit as yet another non-snitcher. The match against Stoke City FC was played on Monday 28th December, 2015, which occurred after my appointment. Therefore, I put it to you that I have behaved impeccably in my role as snitcher since my automatic appointment that comes with a successful snitch on December 23rd 2015.

Indeed, I would speculate that supersnitcher's involvement in this thread may be motivated by seeking revenge following the aforementioned snitch made just prior to Christmas. Allegedly.

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Made 4 Gwladys on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 12:49 pm

just been asked to quieten down in the office after giggling too loud Laughing Laughing
avatar
Made 4 Gwladys

Number of posts : 32769
Age : 58
Location : between tax havens
Registration date : 2005-10-17

View user profile http://www.doogle.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 12:59 pm

Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:just been asked to quieten down in the office after giggling too loud Laughing Laughing

Contempt of court???

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Statman on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 1:36 pm

Surely it's precedent not precedence.
avatar
Statman

Number of posts : 6908
Age : 54
Location : Northants
Registration date : 2005-12-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Da Judge on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 1:45 pm

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Da Judge wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
supersnitcher wrote:should this be Swansea City by any chance.

the current snitcher should register a massive fail
cheers ok... who is not online... I reckon supersnitcher is in fact Da Judge Laughing

Ha ha ha. Indeed it should be Swansea City, although I would politely point out that a precedence has been previously set that prevents action being taken against myself.

If you refer to the sixth post in the recent match thread relating to the match against Stoke City, then you will note that I made precisely the same point. On this occasion, no favourable snitching judgement was made. As this is the most recent example of such a snitching attempt, it is therefore concluded that the precedence was set and that we can only agree that it is now acceptable for the initiator of a Match Thread to omit team name suffixes.

Bearing in mind all of this detail, you will understand my deliberate choice to not raise Bluejagz' omission on this occasion.

I realise that you must have been very busy completing the 'parole' report on the defendant named Super and his suspended sentence. The court would like to know when it will required to sit to hear closing arguments on the matter.

With respect to the matter of this thread you are right precedence may appear to have been set - but it is for the court to decide - you can merely indicate the belief that it has been set. Impersonation of a court officer (even as a different court officer) is a serious transgression and an allegation not to be taken lightly.

For instance the initial precedence (and one never raised was earlier in the season for the trip to the Hawthorns). If I had been the appointed snitcher I would have reminded everyone that there is an Albion and that is not up north where Scotland now resides... but not wishing to impersonate another office I kept quiet counsel.


I note that this has been edited since I initially replied, so I trust that you would agree it only fair to allow me to respond to the final paragraph.

My appointment as snitcher only came after snitching on Super (otherwise known as supersnitcher) for prematurely starting the Merry Christmas thread two days early on December 23rd, 2015.

As the West Bromwich Albion FC match was played on Monday 28th September, 2015, this was well outside my remit as yet another non-snitcher. The match against Stoke City FC was played on Monday 28th December, 2015, which occurred after my appointment. Therefore, I put it to you that I have behaved impeccably in my role as snitcher since my automatic appointment that comes with a successful snitch on December 23rd 2015.

Indeed, I would speculate that supersnitcher's involvement in this thread may be motivated by seeking revenge following the aforementioned snitch made just prior to Christmas. Allegedly.

Dear Snitcher, the court thanks you for the note and is more than happy to proffer congratulations upon how you have conducted yourself in the diligent execution of what can be often seen as a thankless task. The Court in its previous communique was not raising any question as to your performance merely explaining that the precedence you'd thought had been set had in fact already been set.

With that in mind - I am now going to rule.

As most of you know, I do an awful lot of travelling. I also am blessed in being able to afford decent seats and allow myself the luxury to be able to "fly in" for matches... this obviously incurs cost and with Christmas and other work stuff I offered my seats for the Stoke City to my mother and aunt, who proceeded to have a very enjoyable day! Despite the result

Needless to say I was away from t'internet for the days leading up to game and having seen the result had no inclination to go to the thread and read... UNTIL TODAY THAT IS

In what can only be described as a stupendously nuanced steer, Chief Snitcher has now brought to my attention the events of the threads beginning. I must be honest - the defendant is a recalcitrant offender whose presence in the dock is almost becoming an annual event.
Almost certainly Sef has breeched the high levels of conduct expected in the league.

What is more it is so encouraging and heart warming to see such behaviour amongst Snitcher's colleagues where the minutest scintilla of detail was pounced upon and snitched - my, my it was enough to make a judge's quill stiffen!

So chronologically...

1. Sef stumbles (we all slip sometimes)
2. Snitcher makes his point - quoting the precedence of Norwich City - whereby a thread started without full name is due a judgement. If memory serves M4G blurted but by the time case arrived in court for a judgement the thread had been altered (before Kick Off) so no penalty was applied the case being deemed frivolous. This circumstance did not arise in the Stoke City game and thus needs to be considered as a true snitch.
3. Snitcher fails to indicate incorrect Judge title and is thus de-snitched replaced by Carmister....
4. However Hinchcliffe Corner then trumped both with a grammatical connection
5. Sef by this time all but gave up in frustration - cursing the pedantry on display
6. M4G then took pedantry to an unbelievable level and corrected HC

which means that M4G during the Stoke game was pro-temp the Chief snitcher awaiting Court's confirmation. However the Court was not aware of the papers and as such has not ruled. It was therefore M4G's duty to call into question the thread title for the Swansea game. That it has been picked up by the most loyal, faithful and determined snitcher the Court has seen in some time - the right to the office has thus returned to BHE (where if I may be so bold it so rightfully belongs).

So on count 1 - Sef - judgement against but with leniency attached. The Court continues to express the wish that through compassion you will indeed look upon this as a fresh start - a chance to work within the rules of threading, thread-theft and grammar! So guilty but no points docked (we have the precedence of you being minus before and it didn't stop you!!!!)

Count 2 - incorrect precedence, I find the case proven however the behaviour of the loyal servant and such dedication to duty does warrant leniency - so no points docked but a warning to future vigilance will be placed on file for the rest of the year.

Count 3 - Carmister awarded 4 points for successful snitch. I am overlooking the bribery of offering flowers!! But cannot overlook the fact that you should have picked up on the other grammatical error. So dock two points. Also recognise that his reign was possibly the shortest and will be entered into the League annals.

Count 4 - HC - awarded 4 points for the successful snitch. In line with Count 3 judgement two points docked.

Count 5 - Sef's recognition of the situation - perfectly expressed merits 2 points - in the hope that it encourages the anti-recidivist streak he needs to nurture.

Count 6 - M4G - successful snitch so plus 4 points.

Which now brings the issue to close other than to recognise that this judgement was itself driven by a top quality snitch. So good it was a snitch without ever appearing as a snitch. BHE regains the title of Chief Snitcher with the Court's blessing and thanks. The Court is gracious enough to grant such loyalty with a 6 point bonus.

On the earlier alluded matter of Super's Christmas thread theft (jumping the gun) I will pronounce judgement later today now that all papers are in.
avatar
Da Judge

Number of posts : 8351
Age : 56
Location : Hungary/Switzerland/Czech Republic/Ireland/US & UK
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=nyy

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Da Judge on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 1:48 pm

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:just been asked to quieten down in the office after giggling too loud Laughing Laughing

Contempt of court???

No you get a warning first ... then repetition is the offence.... loving the terrier like quality...
avatar
Da Judge

Number of posts : 8351
Age : 56
Location : Hungary/Switzerland/Czech Republic/Ireland/US & UK
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=nyy

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Da Judge on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm

Statman wrote:Surely it's precedent not precedence.

There is "a precedent" ... and there is case precedence in which the precedent was set ... was always my understanding.
avatar
Da Judge

Number of posts : 8351
Age : 56
Location : Hungary/Switzerland/Czech Republic/Ireland/US & UK
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=nyy

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 2:04 pm

An excellent ruling, Sire.

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Made 4 Gwladys on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 6:15 pm

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:An excellent ruling, Sire.
as chief administrator (call me Sep) of this beautiful competition... I think I might have to consider sacking the legal representation for getting a bit too 'lively' in the snitch rulings... Very Happy
avatar
Made 4 Gwladys

Number of posts : 32769
Age : 58
Location : between tax havens
Registration date : 2005-10-17

View user profile http://www.doogle.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  sefton on Tue 19 Jan 2016, 6:19 pm

Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:An excellent ruling, Sire.
as chief administrator (call me Sep) of this beautiful competition... I think I might have to consider sacking the legal representation for getting a bit too 'lively' in the snitch rulings... Very Happy


Would that be because ''Da Judge'' didn't award you as many bonus (arse licking )points as BHE? Justice was served lol!

Anyways, I can see Everton giving some one a good spanking, Swansea could be that team . going for a 6-0 hammering.

Lukaku with hatrick. cheers
avatar
sefton

Number of posts : 9162
Age : 54
Location : Stoke Poges
Registration date : 2007-10-31

View user profile http://www.evertonfc.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Wed 20 Jan 2016, 11:41 am

sefton wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:An excellent ruling, Sire.
as chief administrator (call me Sep) of this beautiful competition... I think I might have to consider sacking the legal representation for getting a bit too 'lively' in the snitch rulings... Very Happy


Would that be because ''Da Judge'' didn't award you as many bonus (arse licking )points as BHE? Justice was served lol!

Anyways, I can see Everton giving some one a good spanking, Swansea could be that team . going for a 6-0 hammering.

Lukaku with hatrick. cheers

Arse-licking points indeed. How very dare you.

Anyway, we're due a good win aren't we. Swansea may have scraped a 1-0 win against Watford, but it only papers the cracks. They're really not very good. We should win this easily.

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Made 4 Gwladys on Wed 20 Jan 2016, 12:55 pm

Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
sefton wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:An excellent ruling, Sire.
as chief administrator (call me Sep) of this beautiful competition... I think I might have to consider sacking the legal representation for getting a bit too 'lively' in the snitch rulings... Very Happy


Would that be because ''Da Judge'' didn't award you as many bonus (arse licking )points as BHE? Justice was served lol!

Anyways, I can see Everton giving some one a good spanking, Swansea could be that team . going for a 6-0 hammering.

Lukaku with hatrick. cheers

Arse-licking points indeed. How very dare you.

Anyway, we're due a good win aren't we. Swansea may have scraped a 1-0 win against Watford, but it only papers the cracks. They're really not very good. We should win this easily.
..are you referring to Swansea City by any chance
avatar
Made 4 Gwladys

Number of posts : 32769
Age : 58
Location : between tax havens
Registration date : 2005-10-17

View user profile http://www.doogle.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Wed 20 Jan 2016, 1:32 pm

Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:
sefton wrote:
Mori Foo Gwladys wrote:
Barry Horne's Equaliser wrote:An excellent ruling, Sire.
as chief administrator (call me Sep) of this beautiful competition... I think I might have to consider sacking the legal representation for getting a bit too 'lively' in the snitch rulings... Very Happy


Would that be because ''Da Judge'' didn't award you as many bonus (arse licking )points as BHE? Justice was served lol!

Anyways, I can see Everton giving some one a good spanking, Swansea could be that team . going for a 6-0 hammering.

Lukaku with hatrick. cheers

Arse-licking points indeed. How very dare you.

Anyway, we're due a good win aren't we. Swansea may have scraped a 1-0 win against Watford, but it only papers the cracks. They're really not very good. We should win this easily.
..are you referring to Swansea City by any chance

Very Happy

I'm referring to the same team against whom their name has had precedence set many, many times previously in this thread.

Should you not have a question mark at the end of your question?

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Super on Wed 20 Jan 2016, 4:53 pm

I'm innocent I tell you.......
avatar
Super

Number of posts : 35803
Age : 39
Location : Peterborough
Registration date : 2005-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Barry Horne's Equaliser on Wed 20 Jan 2016, 5:09 pm

Super wrote:I'm innocent I tell you.......

Tell it to the judge.

What's this City of Swansea nonsense that's appeared in the title thread now? It's such flagrant disregard of the rules. Laughing

_________________
Snitchy, snitchy.
avatar
Barry Horne's Equaliser

Number of posts : 12962
Age : 39
Location : Rugby
Registration date : 2005-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Everton v City of Swansea

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 12 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum