Southport away postponed

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

lo36789
Posts: 9249
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by lo36789 » Sat Jan 09, 2021 7:42 pm

Definitely agree that it seems to be needed to continue.

I just expect it won't be anything but a league responsibility ie. well if you don't pay for it then it doesn't happen and you have to manage the consequence. The league will just be asked to determine an outcome for their season.

Only 2 games played in our division today 8 were postponed due to weather and covid reasons combined.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:52 am

The PFA are funding the testing for the EFL, so not just expected on the EFL to fund it themselves.

lo36789
Posts: 9249
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by lo36789 » Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:15 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:52 am
The PFA are funding the testing for the EFL, so not just expected on the EFL to fund it themselves.
If that is the case then it would be strange for the PFA to pay for some of its members and not it's others, otherwise could question what they are paying their memberships for?

Darlofan97
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:27 pm

I think PFA membership only covers PL to EFL level. However, the ironic thing about it is many National League players will be ex-PFA members that will have contributed significantly over recent years and also include prospective new members.

I'm not saying the PFA should fund testing for National League clubs, they're not bound to do so, but it would be encouraging to see them support testing at our level and stand alongside a lot of their ex-members and potential new ones too.

jjljks
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by jjljks » Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:10 pm

Northern League are considering making their season null&void, so for once they are showing some initiative & putting the FA and all the 'elite' leagues to shame.

lo36789
Posts: 9249
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by lo36789 » Sun Jan 10, 2021 6:33 pm

jjljks wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:10 pm
Northern League are considering making their season null&void, so for once they are showing some initiative & putting the FA and all the 'elite' leagues to shame.
The leagues are only doing it because they can't legally play under government rules and believe the decision is effectively forced upon them. I am not sure it is initiative if it is a decision forced upon you.

H1987
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by H1987 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:29 am

Darlofan97 wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:27 pm
I think PFA membership only covers PL to EFL level. However, the ironic thing about it is many National League players will be ex-PFA members that will have contributed significantly over recent years and also include prospective new members.

I'm not saying the PFA should fund testing for National League clubs, they're not bound to do so, but it would be encouraging to see them support testing at our level and stand alongside a lot of their ex-members and potential new ones too.
This is the problem with our level being classed as 'elite'. It really isn't, and we can't fund the safety measures the pro clubs can. Our players, and many others in the division, all have other jobs. It causes quite an amount of untested community mixing.

To me, we shouldn't be playing right now. The season should be paused and extended.

I'd also be assuming that Euro 2020/1 (whatever it's called now) is in serious doubt.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:34 pm

I said at the time that last season should have been played to its conclusion once it was safe to do so and then this season started later. It would have taken 2 or 3 years to get back to the august starting point. Yes there would have been contract problems but the FA could quite easily have banned transfers until the season had finished so players would have had their contracts extended to suit.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Southport away postponed

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:58 pm

loan_star wrote:I said at the time that last season should have been played to its conclusion once it was safe to do so and then this season started later. It would have taken 2 or 3 years to get back to the august starting point. Yes there would have been contract problems but the FA could quite easily have banned transfers until the season had finished so players would have had their contracts extended to suit.
Yep, banning transfers, forcing players to remain in contracts they don’t wish to be in. Forcing clubs to employ players they don’t want to. Unfair advantages to certain clubs. Clubs going under because they can’t afford the wage bills.

Yep, really easy solution that.

Banning transfers is just a stupid suggestion. Players can’t be compelled to remain at a club beyond their contract. If they choose to leave, the club wouldn’t have any means of replacing them. So you’re damaging the integrity of the competition.

Extending the season and banning transfers would have seen clubs go under, players lose their jobs and face financial ruin. And at the time, there was no idea when a restart would have been possible.

Here’s a fact a lot of the experts in this thread won’t accept. There was and is no good solution. End the season early and you get complaints from clubs who missed out (e.g. South Shields, York etc).

Extend it and you have the integrity and financial costs that come with it.

For what it is worth, there is no evidence actually holding matches increases the spread any more than anywhere else - offices, factories, supermarkets and so on. Most of the spreading in elite football comes from training (which is logical as players spend more time training than playing), or from players’ other jobs.

I’m struggling to see what pausing now and restarting in a month or two would actually achieve. To me you either end the entire season now or carry on but with stronger enforcement of measures. A several-week break feels more symbolic than achieving anything tangible.

Yes you can say it would reduce the risk of spreading, but there’s risk in absolutely any form of interaction.

There are very valid points made around the testing that’s been available, and whether the Premier League and National League North/South should be viewed as the same. And around club finances. And whether the leagues and authorities have been decisive enough, or enforced rules properly enough.

But people who proclaim there was one easy solution to all this (as some in this thread are making out) are fantasists.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

spen666
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by spen666 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:04 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:58 pm
...

I’m struggling to see what pausing now and restarting in a month or two would actually achieve. To me you either end the entire season now or carry on but with stronger enforcement of measures. A several-week break feels more symbolic than achieving anything tangible.

.....

I agree - pausing the season seems to be the worst of all worlds - it means clubs continue to have expenses and have to be prepared to restart, but then have far less time to complete the season.

Imagine if instead of I think its 32 games in 19 weeks, the season was suspended until say end of February, then Darlington would have still 32 games, but now only 12 weeks to play them in.

The only realistic options are give up now and end the season or try to get as many games played as possible. If you get to 75% of games, then PPG becomes a realistic option if the season can't be finished.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:50 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:58 pm
Extending the season and banning transfers would have seen clubs go under, players lose their jobs and face financial ruin. And at the time, there was no idea when a restart would have been possible.
Not ideal I know but it is a unique situation. Yes they could have banned transfers and extended the season but they would have had to put financial safeguards in place like they have this season. Of course players wouldnt be happy if they wanted to move on once their contract expired but if they had nowhere to go then it would be sensible to stay put, see out the contract extension, and then move.
There is no easy solution and each one has its own downside. Hindsight is a great tool. I bet when the clubs agreed to start this season they didnt think some clubs would get far more than they deserved to compensate for the lack of fans too. Had they known the breakdown of the grants I'd like to bet that some clubs wouldnt have started the season at all unless changes were made.

lo36789
Posts: 9249
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by lo36789 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:17 pm

Interesting development that Scotland have suspended levels below the Scottish Championship for 3 weeks.

I am sure all EFL games and above require an ambulance in attendance. Not sure about NL and NLN. An ambulance which could be used by the health service - it is paid for - but at the same time things are stretched.

There is an interesting article on BBC saying attentions are starting to turn to why football is continuing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55615893)

Feel things are on a knife edge at the moment. It wouldn't surprise me that that media really turn on football if there is a serious injury in a game in coming weeks. A player requiring hospital treatment and it will raise questions as to whether it's right to carry on.

spen666
Posts: 1986
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by spen666 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:33 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:17 pm
Interesting development that Scotland have suspended levels below the Scottish Championship for 3 weeks.

I am sure all EFL games and above require an ambulance in attendance. Not sure about NL and NLN. An ambulance which could be used by the health service - it is paid for - but at the same time things are stretched.
Think the requirement is only on Championship clubs - so League 1 or 2 players - tough on you
35.2.2 Clubs participating in the Championship Division shall ensure that throughout each League Match a fully equipped, dedicated and appropriately insured ambulance suitable to carry an emergency casualty and staffed by a Person or Persons qualified to perform essential emergency care en route is available at the ground to transport any Player or Match Official requiring emergency treatment to hospital.

That is from EFL website. The ambulance does not have to be an NHS one - and I would suspect in all cases it is a private one that is present

There is an interesting article on BBC saying attentions are starting to turn to why football is continuing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55615893)

Feel things are on a knife edge at the moment. It wouldn't surprise me that that media really turn on football if there is a serious injury in a game in coming weeks. A player requiring hospital treatment and it will raise questions as to whether it's right to carry on.

I agree with you though.


Following the Scottish development and the numerous examples of players breaching Covid rules, it seems as though football below top 2 divisions is heading towards a real risk of suspension

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Southport away postponed

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:09 pm

loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:58 pm
Extending the season and banning transfers would have seen clubs go under, players lose their jobs and face financial ruin. And at the time, there was no idea when a restart would have been possible.
Not ideal I know but it is a unique situation. Yes they could have banned transfers and extended the season but they would have had to put financial safeguards in place like they have this season. Of course players wouldnt be happy if they wanted to move on once their contract expired but if they had nowhere to go then it would be sensible to stay put, see out the contract extension, and then move.
Sounds pretty much like forced labour to me. Work for one club or you get nothing. You’re in essence wiping out any rights footballers have as employees of clubs, which would be illegal.

Freedom to choose where you work is a fundamental basis of our society. Banning players from having the ability to work where they wish is immoral, let alone illegal.

It’s not always sensible to stay put. Take Wigan for example. Your plan would have left them having to pay players their wages, despite having no money to do so. As a consequence, players wouldn’t have been able to pay bills, would have lost homes, been unable to support families.

Moreover, the FA or National League cannot force contract extensions to take place. That’s a matter of employment law. If a player wants to leave, they can. If a club doesn’t want a player, they can release them. Nothing the FA can do about that.

Your idea would also mean players released by clubs couldn’t gain employment for an indefinite period of time. Again, this would be against employment law, denying people the chance to work through no fault of their own.

But keep on with your illegal, immoral, authoritarian ideas.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlofan97
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by Darlofan97 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:13 pm

loan_star wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:50 pm
Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:58 pm
Extending the season and banning transfers would have seen clubs go under, players lose their jobs and face financial ruin. And at the time, there was no idea when a restart would have been possible.
Not ideal I know but it is a unique situation. Yes they could have banned transfers and extended the season but they would have had to put financial safeguards in place like they have this season. Of course players wouldnt be happy if they wanted to move on once their contract expired but if they had nowhere to go then it would be sensible to stay put, see out the contract extension, and then move.
There is no easy solution and each one has its own downside. Hindsight is a great tool. I bet when the clubs agreed to start this season they didnt think some clubs would get far more than they deserved to compensate for the lack of fans too. Had they known the breakdown of the grants I'd like to bet that some clubs wouldnt have started the season at all unless changes were made.
You would also get some players with bigger contracts lined up refusing to play for their current club, which would also cause huge problems.

I think the best decision was made at the time.

This season is a bit different and there is no obvious solution to the problem. It is too easy to say that we should suspend or terminate the season without considering the contractual & financial commitments clubs face. However, I do think if we carry on then players & management staff should be tested on a regular basis in-line with their fellow ‘elite’ colleagues in the football pyramid.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:26 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:09 pm
loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:58 pm
Extending the season and banning transfers would have seen clubs go under, players lose their jobs and face financial ruin. And at the time, there was no idea when a restart would have been possible.
Not ideal I know but it is a unique situation. Yes they could have banned transfers and extended the season but they would have had to put financial safeguards in place like they have this season. Of course players wouldnt be happy if they wanted to move on once their contract expired but if they had nowhere to go then it would be sensible to stay put, see out the contract extension, and then move.
Sounds pretty much like forced labour to me. Work for one club or you get nothing. You’re in essence wiping out any rights footballers have as employees of clubs, which would be illegal.

Freedom to choose where you work is a fundamental basis of our society. Banning players from having the ability to work where they wish is immoral, let alone illegal.

It’s not always sensible to stay put. Take Wigan for example. Your plan would have left them having to pay players their wages, despite having no money to do so. As a consequence, players wouldn’t have been able to pay bills, would have lost homes, been unable to support families.

Moreover, the FA or National League cannot force contract extensions to take place. That’s a matter of employment law. If a player wants to leave, they can. If a club doesn’t want a player, they can release them. Nothing the FA can do about that.

Your idea would also mean players released by clubs couldn’t gain employment for an indefinite period of time. Again, this would be against employment law, denying people the chance to work through no fault of their own.

But keep on with your illegal, immoral, authoritarian ideas.
Trying to turn this into another argument? Considering you have a go at people for only answering half a post you missed off the bit where I said each way had a downside. But yeh, carry on.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:32 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:13 pm
You would also get some players with bigger contracts lined up refusing to play for their current club, which would also cause huge problems.

I think the best decision was made at the time.

This season is a bit different and there is no obvious solution to the problem. It is too easy to say that we should suspend or terminate the season without considering the contractual & financial commitments clubs face. However, I do think if we carry on then players & management staff should be tested on a regular basis in-line with their fellow ‘elite’ colleagues in the football pyramid.
No matter what decision was made there was winners and losers. there wasn't an ideal solution that would keep everyone happy.
My point was that in a unique situation, providing the correct financial assistance was fairly distributed for all clubs, players could put moves on hold for a couple of months for the good of the game. They managed to get it to work in the premier league and championship but they do have more cash to help them out too.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Southport away postponed

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:07 am

loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:09 pm
loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:58 pm
Extending the season and banning transfers would have seen clubs go under, players lose their jobs and face financial ruin. And at the time, there was no idea when a restart would have been possible.
Not ideal I know but it is a unique situation. Yes they could have banned transfers and extended the season but they would have had to put financial safeguards in place like they have this season. Of course players wouldnt be happy if they wanted to move on once their contract expired but if they had nowhere to go then it would be sensible to stay put, see out the contract extension, and then move.
Sounds pretty much like forced labour to me. Work for one club or you get nothing. You’re in essence wiping out any rights footballers have as employees of clubs, which would be illegal.

Freedom to choose where you work is a fundamental basis of our society. Banning players from having the ability to work where they wish is immoral, let alone illegal.

It’s not always sensible to stay put. Take Wigan for example. Your plan would have left them having to pay players their wages, despite having no money to do so. As a consequence, players wouldn’t have been able to pay bills, would have lost homes, been unable to support families.

Moreover, the FA or National League cannot force contract extensions to take place. That’s a matter of employment law. If a player wants to leave, they can. If a club doesn’t want a player, they can release them. Nothing the FA can do about that.

Your idea would also mean players released by clubs couldn’t gain employment for an indefinite period of time. Again, this would be against employment law, denying people the chance to work through no fault of their own.

But keep on with your illegal, immoral, authoritarian ideas.
Trying to turn this into another argument? Considering you have a go at people for only answering half a post you missed off the bit where I said each way had a downside. But yeh, carry on.
I think something which is illegal, immoral and authoritarian is a bit more than “a downside”.

Some ideas are worse than others, and forcing players to remain at a club against their will, while restricting their labour is about as reprehensible as you can get in my view.

I want to see you explain how banning transfers and restricting labour would have worked under employment law. That’s a very fair question but you have ignored it so far.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:16 am

loan_star wrote:
Darlofan97 wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:13 pm
You would also get some players with bigger contracts lined up refusing to play for their current club, which would also cause huge problems.

I think the best decision was made at the time.

This season is a bit different and there is no obvious solution to the problem. It is too easy to say that we should suspend or terminate the season without considering the contractual & financial commitments clubs face. However, I do think if we carry on then players & management staff should be tested on a regular basis in-line with their fellow ‘elite’ colleagues in the football pyramid.
No matter what decision was made there was winners and losers. there wasn't an ideal solution that would keep everyone happy.
My point was that in a unique situation, providing the correct financial assistance was fairly distributed for all clubs, players could put moves on hold for a couple of months for the good of the game. They managed to get it to work in the premier league and championship but they do have more cash to help them out too.
You’re making the mistake of thinking football transfer rules and employment law is the same. It isn’t.

Should also add they didn’t put transfers “on hold” in the Premier League and Championship. Players still became free agents and left clubs.

Add in that there’s no transfer window in the National League and the idea becomes entirely unworkable.

Saying there’s downsides doesn’t cover it. It would have been illegal under employment law to ban transfers.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:17 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:07 am

I think something which is illegal, immoral and authoritarian is a bit more than “a downside”.

Some ideas are worse than others, and forcing players to remain at a club against their will, while restricting their labour is about as reprehensible as you can get in my view.

I want to see you explain how banning transfers and restricting labour would have worked under employment law. That’s a very fair question but you have ignored it so far.
Obviously all parties would have to be in agreement in a unique situation such as this. If players didn't want to be involved then that would be their call but they wouldn't be able to play for their new club either.
Technically being banned for a few bookings or a sending off is restricting labour too, football rules don't bow to employment law in that case do they.
Anyway this board is all about different opinions. Darlofan97 put forward an argument against the idea without needing to resort to being patronising. You should try it sometime.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Southport away postponed

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:36 pm

loan_star wrote: Obviously all parties would have to be in agreement in a unique situation such as this. If players didn't want to be involved then that would be their call but they wouldn't be able to play for their new club either.
If the FA had banned transfers, it’s their call, not the players. That’s like blaming JFK for not getting out of the way of the bullets.

But at least you’re starting to admit it’s not as simple as you initially made out.

You’ve still not acknowledged how it would work in employment law though. Denying players the chance to move and forcing them to take contract extensions against their will. God help any of your employees.

loan_star wrote: Technically being banned for a few bookings or a sending off is restricting labour too, football rules don't bow to employment law in that case do they.
Great, so you admit a transfer ban is restricting labour. Huzzah! You admit it’s illegal. Now we’re getting somewhere.

But equating an FA-imposed transfer ban to getting two yellow cards in a match? Just embarrassing. Getting a one-match ban is not restricting labour.

If a player gets sent off, that’s the player’s fault. They’ve broken the rules of the competition. It is also a temporary punishment. The player can still train and get paid. He’s not denied a chance to work.

If the FA stops player movement, that’s the FA’s fault. The player gets stopped from working through no fault of his own. It is also, by definition, an indefinite punishment. He could miss out on earnings and may not be allowed even to train.

That is both unfair and illegal. No amount of “it’s a unique circumstance” justifies exploiting workers and denying them basic employment rights as you’re suggesting.

loan_star wrote: Anyway this board is all about different opinions. Darlofan97 put forward an argument against the idea without needing to resort to being patronising. You should try it sometime.
You mean DarloFan97 didn’t say unkind things about how poor and ill-thought out your argument is. Poor little snowflake.

If you’re too proud and egotistical to admit you’ve made a mistake, that’s your problem. Don’t delude yourself into thinking just because you have an opinion it should be respected. Bad opinions deserve ridicule, particularly if you refuse to acknowledge their flaws (like it being illegal).

Perhaps try thinking your opinions through before typing them out.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:44 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:36 pm
More patronising waffle
Resorted to name calling too now. What a sad man you are.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Southport away postponed

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:05 pm

loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:36 pm
More patronising waffle
Resorted to name calling too now. What a sad man you are.
You’re the one who thinks getting a red card is a restriction of labour. With that level of intellect you’ll find most things patronising.

If you thought your argument was a decent one you’d be defending it properly. Instead you’re playing the victim and making ad hominem attacks. Says it all.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:44 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:05 pm
More patronising waffle
Says the man making ad hominem attacks lol. Just a tad hypocritical too don't you think.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Southport away postponed

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:52 pm

loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:05 pm
More patronising waffle
Says the man making ad hominem attacks lol. Just a tad hypocritical too don't you think.
Couldn’t care less.

I’ve shown you up to be the no-nothing snowflake you actually are. So much so, even you’ve recognised your own argument is indefensible.

I expect you’ll be telling Ryan Fraser to sue the FA, after his sending off tonight. ImageImage
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:06 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:52 pm
loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:05 pm
More patronising waffle
Says the man making ad hominem attacks lol. Just a tad hypocritical too don't you think.
Couldn’t care less.

I’ve shown you up to be the no-nothing snowflake you actually are. So much so, even you’ve recognised your own argument is indefensible.

I expect you’ll be telling Ryan Fraser to sue the FA, after his sending off tonight. ImageImage
And you have shown yourself to be a total hypocrite. Its ok for you to make personal attacks or make snide remarks but if anyone else does it to you, its a sign of they have lost the argument.
And its KNOW NOTHING!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Darlogramps
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Southport away postponed

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:02 am

loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:52 pm
loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:05 pm
More patronising waffle
Says the man making ad hominem attacks lol. Just a tad hypocritical too don't you think.
Couldn’t care less.

I’ve shown you up to be the no-nothing snowflake you actually are. So much so, even you’ve recognised your own argument is indefensible.

I expect you’ll be telling Ryan Fraser to sue the FA, after his sending off tonight. ImageImage
And you have shown yourself to be a total hypocrite. Its ok for you to make personal attacks or make snide remarks but if anyone else does it to you, its a sign of they have lost the argument.
And its KNOW NOTHING!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
No, the sign of you losing the argument is you not defending your own points of view, and not even trying to respond to my points. You were the one who started with the personal remarks and now are crying like the snowflake you are because I’ve given it back at you. If you don’t like getting personal insults don’t dish them out in the first place.

You haven’t even tried to counter my argument because my points are superior to yours. For one, I’m not advocating breaking the law. Second, you’ve already rowed back on several of your initial viewpoints. You’re just trying to disguise the retreat by hurling abuse at me instead.

And what’s one typo compared to you thinking a red card equates to breaking the law? You’re a desperate, thick, little snowflake and it’s funny watching you get so rattled.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6355
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by loan_star » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:27 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:02 am
*more waffle*

And what’s one typo compared to you thinking a red card equates to breaking the law? You’re a desperate, thick, little snowflake and it’s funny watching you get so rattled.
You should learn to read properly before criticising.

As for the abuse, I called you sad for the way you act on here and also a hypocrite for the abuse you started, not me, with your snowflake comment.

If anyone is rattled it’s you. I’m just laughing at how fucking stupid you are making yourself look again.

eddie-rowles
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:51 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by eddie-rowles » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:06 am

loan_star wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:27 am
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:02 am
*more waffle*

And what’s one typo compared to you thinking a red card equates to breaking the law? You’re a desperate, thick, little snowflake and it’s funny watching you get so rattled.
You should learn to read properly before criticising.

As for the abuse, I called you sad for the way you act on here and also a hypocrite for the abuse you started, not me, with your snowflake comment.

If anyone is rattled it’s you. I’m just laughing at how fucking stupid you are making yourself look again.
please knock it on the head

EDJOHNS
Posts: 899
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Southport away postponed

Post by EDJOHNS » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:10 am

eddie-rowles wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:06 am
loan_star wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:27 am
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:02 am
*more waffle*

And what’s one typo compared to you thinking a red card equates to breaking the law? You’re a desperate, thick, little snowflake and it’s funny watching you get so rattled.
You should learn to read properly before criticising.

As for the abuse, I called you sad for the way you act on here and also a hypocrite for the abuse you started, not me, with your snowflake comment.

If anyone is rattled it’s you. I’m just laughing at how fucking stupid you are making yourself look again.
please knock it on the head
Careful Eddie, saying that obviously makes you a violent person.

Post Reply