Match Thread: Forest Vs Brentford, sponsored by 461 minutes | Page 9 | Vital Football

Match Thread: Forest Vs Brentford, sponsored by 461 minutes

The reality is purely your opinion and that counts for nowt. I'm not imagining any Karanka curse. It is happening right before our eyes. 2 golas in 10, dour performances and lords know where our next win will come from. Luckily MW got enough points on the board.

We have not moved forward. Kranky has taken us back. Those who cannot see that have their head up their own a-rses. Or won't admitt it due to their fear of being wrong.

I wouldn't say he has taken us backwards because the MW fans conveniently forget the last month or so.

But no one can argue he has taken us forward in terms of results.
 
Anyone using MW as a defence of krankz is just an utter cretin. It is as bad as the Fawaz apologists who no matter what he did wouldn’t even attempt to defend him they’d just drone on & on & on about things ND had done to deflect from their own idiotic ideas.

Excellent post.
 
It's not me who is 'right'. It's just a basic fact

Do some basic research and you will see

You've got evidence from me. None from you.

You might want to check out exactly what Dyke's role and remit was at the club before you embarrass yourself any further. As a hint he was non-executive Chairman...guess who was part of the executive as chairman...

Lol clown shown up again.
 
You've got evidence from me. None from you.

You might want to check out exactly what Dyke's role and remit was at the club before you embarrass yourself any further. As a hint he was non-executive Chairman...guess who was part of the executive as chairman...

Lol clown shown up again.

You've offered up one Guardian article and made the rest up.

Obviously i'm not business savvy but I have always understood that the owner of a business is the person who has a majority shareholding.

Now, it is a fact that he did not have a controlling share until 2012. The club was in fact owned by the supporters trust.

I cannot find any facts to back up your claim that he was chairman before that- I can only find reference to Greg Dyke. But that's not even an issue (it's just the one you calculate you have the best chance of 'winning' on).

The club was not owned by Benham until 2012. You have offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that he instituted a particular footballing philosophy. Even the article you posted says nothing of the sort
 
Pope & CP’s behaviour has to be one of the orders of business for the next MMM. We have to find out who’s accounts they are & bring them to justice
 
You've offered up one Guardian article and made the rest up.

Obviously i'm not business savvy but I have always understood that the owner of a business is the person who has a majority shareholding.

Now, it is a fact that he did not have a controlling share until 2012. The club was in fact owned by the supporters trust.

I cannot find any facts to back up your claim that he was chairman before that- I can only find reference to Greg Dyke. But that's not even an issue (it's just the one you calculate you have the best chance of 'winning' on).

The club was not owned by Benham until 2012. You have offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that he instituted a particular footballing philosophy. Even the article you posted says nothing of the sort

Goal posts changed lol

Back up your argument that MB wasn't at the club or run along you clueless clown. I've provided evidence that he was. You've provided none.

You've claimed MB wasn't at the club, I've proved he was. I also told you it was MB funding the Trust - in particular a 500k shortfall.

Simple question, you claim MB wasn't there when Uve was appointed, do you still claim that to be the case?
 
Goal posts changed lol

Back up your argument that MB wasn't at the club or run along you clueless clown. I've provided evidence that he was. You've provided none.

You've claimed MB wasn't at the club, I've proved he was. I also told you it was MB funding the Trust - in particular a 500k shortfall.

Simple question, you claim MB wasn't there when Uve was appointed, do you still claim that to be the case?

When you can't win an argument, you change what it was about.

I said that he was there from 2009 but not as owner. Because he wasn't.

You started with the claim that Benham decided on a specific style of play years ago and built the club around that. That is what this whole argument is about and for all your insults you have utterly failed to provide a shred of evidence that that is the case.

I on the other hand have simply refuted that by arguing that it is unlikely that such a comprehensive strategy was invoked by someone who didn't even own the club at the time- especially when that same man, after buying a majority shareholding did actually invoke a major comprehensive strategy - one that has nothing to do with footballing style and led to him saying goodbye to MW.

You are the one who made the claim about Benjamin invoking a footballing style, the burden of proof is on you.

But you have no intention of providing any evidence so are trying to shift the whole thing onto my refutation instead.
 
Your personal abuse style is incredibly tiresome CP.

Warburton left by 'mutual consent' which was announced months before his departure. They wanted to move in a different direction which they knew he wouldn't accept. They knew how it would then out and they were happy to do it anyway. They didnt sack him but did get rid of him effectively.

This article is interesting;

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/558809/Brentford-Boss-Mark-Warburton-To-Leave-Club

Particularly this:

It is understood Benham and Warburton, who will now leave at the end of the season, clashed in January over the club's transfer policy, with the manager unwilling to bring in new faces which might have unsettled the current squad.

Now, doesn't that sound awfully familiar, especially that last line?

I'm still wondering what magic wand you imagine Warburton was going to wave to turn around his awful run of form and goal drought with his three top goalscorers all losing form?

What do you imagine he was going to do to get Murphy's head right that Karanka hasnt done? What do you imagine he was going to do with the fading Dowell, who hides in adversity anyway? Or McKay who he was already dropping due to form/attitude?

It's fine to compare records in different circumstances, but Warburton left this building with us on worse form even than this and I'm still wondering what you believe he was capable of doing about it with a 20 year old Chelsea defender on loan and this McGinn guy coming?

Of course, I only keep mentioning him because I know it winds you and a couple of others up so much and it's so cute to see you go all Donald Trump frothing at the mouth.

You know Karanka wasn't my first choice by any means but I thought him better than Heckingbottom (who has been a total disaster at a Leeds side that were geninely good). I can't say the results are good enough because they aren't. Performances are from what I see but I'm not going to defend us losing to yet another fucking corner
Warburton's awful running form? It was nothing compared to the current run, or indeed the whole form since January
 
When you can't win an argument, you change what it was about.

I said that he was there from 2009 but not as owner. Because he wasn't.

You started with the claim that Benham decided on a specific style of play years ago and built the club around that. That is what this whole argument is about and for all your insults you have utterly failed to provide a shred of evidence that that is the case.

I on the other hand have simply refuted that by arguing that it is unlikely that such a comprehensive strategy was invoked by someone who didn't even own the club at the time- especially when that same man, after buying a majority shareholding did actually invoke a major comprehensive strategy - one that has nothing to do with footballing style and led to him saying goodbye to MW.

You are the one who made the claim about Benjamin invoking a footballing style, the burden of proof is on you.

But you have no intention of providing any evidence so are trying to shift the whole thing onto my refutation instead.

No you didn't you bellend. I even quoted you. You claimed MB wasn't there when Uve was appointed.

I appreciate we all know you talk a load of shite but it's good to know you've come around to that realisation too.

I've provided evidence he was and now you look a mug you're quickly backtracking. Oh well, nothing new there.
 
No you didn't you bellend. I even quoted you. You claimed MB wasn't there when Uve was appointed.

I appreciate we all know you talk a load of shite but it's good to know you've come around to that realisation too.

I've provided evidence he was and now you look a mug you're quickly backtracking. Oh well, nothing new there.

Ok, so he was there, and so that particular single line of my refutation doesn't work. But he didn't own the club. Therefore, how are you going to back up your claim that he implemented a comprehensive footballing philosophy a year prior to him owning it?

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence for him doing so. What I can find is evidence that he decided a big strategy (the so called 'money ball strategy) in 2015 and sacrificed his manager to do so. I can provide articles for that if you wish, although the main one is from the Daily Mail and I would therefore rather not encourage people to give them a hit on their website if it's all the same to you.

You are effectively claiming that a man who didn't actually own the club but was just propping up the actual owners (supporters trust) not only chose the manager (plausible but no hard evidence even in your article that they did anything but 'meet') but did so on the basis of instigating a specific style of play from which they would not deviate. Again, it's possible but if you are going to endlessly launch personal abuse at someone over this then you might at least have the decency to prove the case first.

You have used personal abuse in every single post of this debate. Don't you ever look back on some of these posts and feel embarrassed by what you are typing? I know I can be aggressive and overstep the mark sometimes but to use personal abuse in every post is ludicrous. Surely OKD must have warned you about this?

This could be a decent little debate if you could control that anger of yours. I'm surprised you care enough because I don't!

And Benjamin, as pretty much anyone might have guessed, is a phone autocorrect of Benham
 
Ok, so he was there, and so that particular single line of my refutation doesn't work. But he didn't own the club. Therefore, how are you going to back up your claim that he implemented a comprehensive footballing philosophy a year prior to him owning it?

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence for him doing so. What I can find is evidence that he decided a big strategy (the so called 'money ball strategy) in 2015 and sacrificed his manager to do so. I can provide articles for that if you wish, although the main one is from the Daily Mail and I would therefore rather not encourage people to give them a hit on their website if it's all the same to you.

You are effectively claiming that a man who didn't actually own the club but was just propping up the actual owners (supporters trust) not only chose the manager (plausible but no hard evidence even in your article that they did anything but 'meet') but did so on the basis of instigating a specific style of play from which they would not deviate. Again, it's possible but if you are going to endlessly launch personal abuse at someone over this then you might at least have the decency to prove the case first.

You have used personal abuse in every single post of this debate. Don't you ever look back on some of these posts and feel embarrassed by what you are typing? I know I can be aggressive and overstep the mark sometimes but to use personal abuse in every post is ludicrous. Surely OKD must have warned you about this?

This could be a decent little debate if you could control that anger of yours. I'm surprised you care enough because I don't!

And Benjamin, as pretty much anyone might have guessed, is a phone autocorrect of Benham

There, that didn't hurt did it? Well done. Consider this personal growth.
 
Oh good look who's back. Did you have a relaxing break on your narrowboat on the Grantham canal? Did you? WELL DID YOU?

No I thought not.
 
There, that didn't hurt did it? Well done. Consider this personal growth.


Didn't think so.

So Calvin Plummer makes something up once again and won't admit it? CP invents a fact to back up his argument and then diverts on to a point of minutia to deflect attention from that?

Just like the 'incredible' work behind the scenes Stuart Pearce had done that transformed the club, except you couldn't actually say what that was?

Just like the ownership/ contractual issues that prevented MW from playing Vellios?

You've got a fair bit of form for this and we aren't talking about one line of a big post, we are talking about huge whoppers.

I've had enough now. There are half a dozen people I can have a actually interesting debate with that aren't so mentally challenged that they believe personal insults in every post add to it. People that will debate a topic rather than deflect to the accuracy of a word and claim victory.

I honestly don't know how you get away with it CP. It's not just me you do it do by any means, you do it to nearly everyone and people are seeing right through you
 
Last edited:
Anyone using MW as a defence of krankz is just an utter cretin. It is as bad as the Fawaz apologists who no matter what he did wouldn’t even attempt to defend him they’d just drone on & on & on about things ND had done to deflect from their own idiotic ideas.
"But... her emails!!!"