Davey as a player

3 ridiculing 1 seems like the usual BBS even match

nice to see the underdog holding his own

 

300k according to soccerbase

offloaded by a team that didn't want him. Bit of a chequered career with 6 clubs in 5 years.

Not comparable but a decent shout.

All time playing career

Club From To Fee League FA Cup League cup Other
Cardiff 05-08-2008 £ 300000 23 (4) 8 3 (0) 0 2 (0) 0 0 (0) 0
Stoke 14-03-2008 14-04-2008 Loan 1 (3) 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0
Wolves 27-07-2006 05-08-2008 Free 32 (23) 12 3 (0) 1 0 (0) 0 2 (0) 0
Charlton 31-08-2005 27-07-2006 Signed 3 (15) 2 1 (3) 2 0 (3) 1 0 (0) 0
Blackburn 31-08-2004 16-05-2005 Loan 6 (5) 1 0 (1) 0 1 (0) 0 0 (0) 0
Perugia 10-07-2003 31-08-2005 Free 17 (11) 5 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0 1 (0) 0
Coventry 13-07-2000 10-07-2003 £ 1000000 51 (21) 14 5 (0) 1 1 (5) 2 0 (0) 0
Arsenal 01-08-1999 13-07-2000 Trainee No appearance data available
Totals £ 1300000 133 (82) 42 12 (4) 4 4 (8) 3 3 (0) 0
goals / game 0.19 0.25 0.25 0
Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals Apps Goals

 

You're getting confused again.

</p>

Unlike yourself I never claimed to have judged conditions myself. But I'll take the word of a close friend who was part of the inspection team over contradictory guess-workfrom abedroom window.</p>

I think you know you're wrong.</p>

 

You are entitled to your opinion

the close freind of yours ought to post and explain his position since I believe he is registered and posts on this board.

Find another bone to chew don.

 

Ok Patterson?

5 years younger than hume with 55 championship games to his name and 14 goals, yes its less goals than Hume but games per goal in the championship is exactly the same as hume at 3.9. Both had two years left on their contract and patterson cost burnley £1m. £200k less than Hume cost us.

I know that the experience is less but his form over the last couple of seasons had been identical to Hume and he had got the benefit of being young so potentially the return on Patterson would be much higher than that on Hume who has already hit his peak.

 

You seem to only notice that sort of thing...

</p>

...with certain perceived antagonists.Are you sure your motive is fair play?</p>

 

what else could it be?

I was simply commenting that its nice to see someone holding their own.

A slightly less experienced poster would probably have backed off at the first sign of poor bit of photoshop work used to illustrate a point and poke fun.

 

I guess by "Find another bone to chew on"....

</p>

....you mean, &quot;Allow me to have the last word andstate thatyour friendis lying.&quot;</p>

Good luck with that.</p>

 

Read again. You've completely missed the point. nt

 

RE: Read again. You've completely missed the point. nt

you'd be better explain in words of one syllable then, because I thought I'd given you a perfectly adequate answer.

 

Which part of "certain perceived antagonists" are you having a problem with? nt

 

ahhh I get it now....

you didn't understand my answer so you turned it on its head and made out I didn't understand your question.

You asked "You seem to only notice that sort of thing with certain perceived antagonists. Are you sure your motive is fair play?


And I answered your question with another question in the subject box "what else could it be?". In the body of the post I then went on to explain why I'd made my earlier post



I'll try terming my question so that you get it this time.

You seem to percieve that I seem to only notice that sort of thing with certain perceived antagonists. So, if it wasn't in the interests of fairness what over motives could I have?

 

No. You still don't get it.

</p>

If your only motive was fair play then you would poke your beak in wherever you perceived this sort of occurrence regardless of who was involved. The fact that you only ever attempt to involve yourself when a dispute involves certain individuals to whom you bear an obvious grudge proves an entirelydifferent motive.</p>

Take your time.</p>

 

wrong again I'm afraid

I don't bear a grudge against anyone on this board (yourself included). I do however, like a bit of banter, so when I see you, jay and Dirk (lets name names here) doing your 3 wise monkies act on someone, I'll have my twopenenth and wait to see what comes back.

You seem to be getting more and more touchy about my contributions to your threads so I'll leave you alone if thats what you want.

 

Ah, I see.

</p>

It's &quot;a bit of banter&quot; you're afterand notfair play. And only with Dirk, Jay or me.</p>

Would you like a shovel?</p>

 

Ah, I get it

rather than accepting the explanation I offerred and calling it a day, you want to give me a bit more banter and continue to pretend you don't get it. Thats very good, well done, I'm impressed, thanks a lot.

 

Dirk Dirk Dirk

</p>

Jay Jay Jay</p>

Windy Windy Windy</p>

 

that seems to be a common theme also

when you can't think of anything else to say that would enable you to get the last word in, you either resort to abuse, sillyness or photoshop. Go on then, you can have the last word, I don't mind. Just don't resort to any of your aforementioned traits.

 

Ding ding!

Brrrrrrrrrrrp! Here you are you stroppy little retard no-mark shitbag.</p>

</p>

 

that made me laugh, that did

shall we play again tomorrow?