: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:51 pm  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

Seeing you were trying to give the impression Leeds had no injuries, is it you?

I like how you changed that post from "Is it you?" to that. You know why you changed it? Because you realised that I said this:

Wellsy13 wrote:

Did you have a significant number of injuries in your squad to key players during these slumps?

So, to quote you: "someone else who has the inability to read!"
Nowhere did I say Leeds had no injuries. And if you are trying to argue that 2 injuries to a crap centre in Toopi and a 2nd-rower in Lauitiiti is a significant amount of injuries to key players, then you really are showing yourself up!

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:52 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Leeds haven't walked the title since 2004 and you were heavy favourites to lose both finals after finishing second to a hot Saints side who bottled the final.

But we won't let facts get in the way of Leeds, will we.

The facts are that it doesn't matter who were favourites that doesn't win you the trophy. But as you said...

Wellsy13 wrote:

...we won't let facts get in the way of Leeds, will we.

You could always actually discuss the matter of the thread whenever you choose to of course.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:01 pm  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

The facts are that it doesn't matter who were favourites that doesn't win you the trophy.

That is true, and no-one has said that isn't the case. But the fact is that Leeds didn't walk the title, and to claim so is ridiculous!

Glenn Morangie wrote:

You could always actually discuss the matter of the thread whenever you choose to of course.

Well I do believe it was you who got your knickers in a twist about my original post in relation to the discussion, so I will start back there:

I don't think Hull will finish top two. I'm not sure about where Leeds will finish, as they will no doubt bottle it again mid-season.

(And I hope you realise that all of this is in relation to the TABLE, not the play-offs).

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:06 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

That is true

So why try and raise the bookies favourite as an issue? Dolt.

If it takes taking the foot off the gas mid-season the walk the GF again I will be more than happy.

As for FC, third isn't unobtainable...

Lower than fifith will require the injury excuse again.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:21 pm  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

So why try and raise the bookies favourite as an issue? Dolt.

Because it was an indication of how much you "walked" the season. So much so that you weren't even favourites to win it. If you'd walked the season, you'd have (unless something bad happened the week before) been the favourites.

Glenn Morangie wrote:

If it takes taking the foot off the gas mid-season the walk the GF again I will be more than happy.

So would I, but it lost you the CC and the LLS though. Sooner or later you might wanna be more ambitious and do more than winning the GF from 2nd!

Glenn Morangie wrote:

As for FC, third isn't unobtainable...

Lower than fifith will require the injury excuse again.

Well we have lost our first choice FB, one of our first choice wingers and centres, one of our impact props hasn't arrived yet and our star signing hasn't even got a visa yet. Just imagine how good we'll be if we get all these in the same squad.
They may not be as significant losses in key positions as losing Toopi and Lauitiiti, but at least it hasn't cost us top-spot yet!

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:31 pm  

I love debating SL championships with Gateshead fans and their vast experience of winning them.

Nice to see they have a stock of excuses for flopping again and it's only March.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:45 pm  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

I love debating SL championships with Gateshead fans and their vast experience of winning them.

Nice to see they have a stock of excuses for flopping again and it's only March.

It's funny, because for someone who has constantly accused people of not being able to read his posts (even though they read correctly), you are struggling to read others. I'm pretty sure I am discussing league positions, and not SL championships.

Not that it matters how many times the club you or I support has won the SL in whether we can discuss it or not. It's not like supporting a club that has won the SL puts you in any better a position than me to discuss it, does it? And if so, please explain as I would love to hear it!

Oh, and Gateshead... original (and desperate)

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:48 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

I'm pretty sure I am discussing league positions, and not SL championships.

I agree it is highly likely that Gateshead/FC (sorry you don't like it but I've been in contact with Companies House) will end up higher than the disappointing second from bottom this year.

As for when they lose, as is the issue of this thread, we don't know. They may pull off wins against the better teams like Leeds, Saints and KR, they may lose to less strong like cas and wire.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:52 pm  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

I agree it is highly likely that Gateshead/FC (sorry you don't like it but I've been in contact with Companies House) will end up higher than second from bottom this year.

You're trying to sound smart and coming off extremely badly. Well done. Tell me, is it the company that score points on the pitch, or the team? And what is the team called? Infact, what is the company called? 'Cos it aint Gateshead/FC

Still waiting for this answer on how you supporting Leeds and me supporting Hull makes any difference as to discussing the SL championship!

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:54 pm  

Personally I thought it would be more polite to discuss the issue of the thread. I've given my opinion regarding this as you will see from my last post.

As an aside would you like to tell us all what the mish-mash club is actually legally called?