Re: cas v leeds : Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:04 pm  

vastman wrote:

err no I didn't old lad, you did.

You mis understood my smiley on the Roger Daley comment because you are either not very bright or ultra defensive.

The smiley was aimed at Rogers inflate idea as to what the score would be in Leeds favour - most reasonable folk would have got that. our attendance figure is of little interest to me unless we are getting a cut, which may well be the next Cas conspiracy theory.

Go back and re read the thread Frank!!!

Sorry Vasty i did mis read the post it was the roger fella

Re: cas v leeds : Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:14 pm  

frank5613 wrote:

Sorry Vasty i did mis read the post it was the roger fella

Not a problem, I'm only your enemy 2 or 3 times a year

Re: cas v leeds : Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:17 pm  

vastman wrote:

Not a problem, I'm only your enemy 2 or 3 times a year

Plus an unlikely ally when it comes to Smokey

Re: cas v leeds : Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:19 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Plus an unlikely ally when it comes to Smokey

Who isn't

Re: cas v leeds : Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:50 pm  

vastman wrote:

Not a problem, I'm only your enemy 2 or 3 times a year

good on you mate

Re: cas v leeds : Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:08 am  

Gronk! wrote:

It was anti-Semitic, not racist.

I believe anti-semitic and racist could technically be construed the same as Jews enjoy the protection of the Race Relations Act as do certain other groups with shared national/religous origins. Here endeth the lesson.

Re: cas v leeds : Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:15 am  

doesn't really help my cause lol