Re: Makinson : Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:00 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Ok. Since you think the club talks BS to the fans about injuries and such like, is Lomax injured or is that just a cover too so that Wello can continue playing at fullback or someone else have a go who maybe ahead of Lomax in the position? Or should I just take what the club is saying at face value and believe that Lomax is injured?

where did i say the club speak BS? After you got on your high horse about me saying things you say you havent don't do it, thanks. I said about spin, they aren't going to give team selections away in the public domain are they?

We have seen a few times this year players come in from outside the 19, what do you make of this? Club lying? Brown spouting BS? Or playing it smart?

Re: Makinson : Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:03 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

When have I said the club is lying? I've said that Brown talks BS. Are you confusing those two completely different entities?

You have accused the club/its staff of numerous things, most of which are tripe

Brown is head coach, part of the clubs staff so when he talks, he talks on behalf of the club. You acuse Brown of lying/talking BS, you acuse the club of lying/talking BS

Re: Makinson : Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:19 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

Nice early excuse . . .

Nice early excuse for what? Him not being picked?

Re: Makinson : Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:20 pm  

southernsaint7 wrote:

<snip>

Let it go.

Re: Makinson : Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:06 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Let it go.

You should take your own advice ...

Re: Makinson : Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:42 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Nice early excuse for what? Him not being picked?

You're basically saying that if Makinson underperforms at full back, it's Brown's fault for playing Wellens there last week.

Seems everyone is to blame for Makinson/Gaskell not pushing on except Makinson/Gaskell themselves.

Anyway, here's hoping we do see some pace at FB tomorrow and it pays dividends. Having said that, the way people talk you'd think we had never won a game with Wellens at full back.

Re: Makinson : Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:27 am  

No1 Saint wrote:

You should take your own advice ...

I have done so. I ended it.

Re: Makinson : Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:28 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

You're basically saying that if Makinson underperforms at full back, it's Brown's fault for playing Wellens there last week.

I wasn't even remotely saying that. I actually said that if Makinson plays I hope he has a stormer. So how is that saying what you are suggesting I said? People on here like to twist my words to suit their own silly games but you have just taken it to a new level. You've completely made something up!

Re: Makinson : Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:41 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

I wasn't even remotely saying that. I actually said that if Makinson plays I hope he has a stormer. So how is that saying what you are suggesting I said? People on here like to twist my words to suit their own silly games but you have just taken it to a new level. You've completely made something up!

You did say you hope he had a stormer . . . . then said:

SaintsFan wrote:

Can't see it though as there was a chance to play him there against Salford to get him up to speed but Wello played there.

Thereby saying the reason he's unlikely to have a stormer is because Brown didn't pick him to play there last week.

If you weren't saying that, what were you saying?

Re: Makinson : Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:59 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

You did say you hope he had a stormer . . . . then said:
Thereby saying the reason he's unlikely to have a stormer is because Brown didn't pick him to play there last week.
If you weren't saying that, what were you saying?

I was saying exactly what I said and I didn't ever say I thought he wouldn't have a stormer. You've made that bit up from scratch.

Stop trying to stir up an argument that just doesn't exist.