MON/WGS Expenditures at Celtic

Its not just you,he has.I think he's obsessed with this topic.He's the new Leone:icon_mrgreen:

 

at least leone was good for comedy, and to be fair he wouldnt resort to personal attacks

 

Very true hoopy.Where is Leone anyway,havent read anything by him in ages.

 

dunno i hope to dear * we havent scared him off :icon_mrgreen:, but nah hes a good guy at heart

 

this is just a thread that will never end ,GS vs MON , And guess what ,when GS leaves wenever ,it will be GS vs WHOEVER, on and on

 

I've made 2.

Hoopymo, if you track back you'll see you were criticised by others for ruining the thread at the start

 

...

 

You're obsessed with me- I never mention you specifically and you can't help doing it in every post. You'd be better at debating if you had a more objective view and didn't undermine what you say with petty insults.

They're not my figures either- I just posted them

 

I'm obsessed with you - that's a cracker.

Forgive me did you not say that those figures were '100%' correct ? You were very wrong on that score.

I don't need a wean telling me how good, bad or indifferent I am at debating. Do you actually think I give a * what you think ?

 

on topic i think it should be noted that strachan started with according to him, only 12 first team players and that most had little sell on value or use. MON on the other hand had a good base to start with; larsson, moravcik, mjallby, johnston, boyd and mcnamara who were all key components in his teams at different times, most very good players and could carry on for a while. strachan has therefore had a much smaller base to build from and was not given an instant cash injection either like MON was, buying players like sutton for £6million - worth about double that in todays transfer market. (ref. at that time zidane was best player in world sold for £45 million, today ronaldo £120 million)

 

One other point AM. You seem to be saying that your figures for Valgaeran and Thompson are without question correct. As a student of journalism you'll realise that none of your figures can be taken as 100% correct when so many of your other figures are so definitely wrong.

Debate that. :bbpd:

 

Your figures are wrong.

Ronaldo hasn't been transferred for £120m, so you are just plucking that out of thin air.

How Many players since Zidane have been transferred for a higher value than he was ?

 

I think this thread needs locking we seem to be going round in circles imo you take each man as is and what he brings not put him against past managers, but ive never doubted wgs as i saw him as a player and he shows the same tenatious attitude he did as a player and thats what i respect about him.
Yes i have questioned more than a few decisions since his arrival but that's footie and for me celtic fc will be so much better with gs staying for as long as he feels he can do a job.

 

Please show these criticisms, and learn to spell criticized.Also don't forget that you have been criticized by two members here so far in this thread.

 

I only said two were '100% correct'

But you're right, these figures can hardly be taken as gospel as I'm sure we'd find a hundered different figures for them across the internet.

 

Oh how embarassing for you... it's spelt 'criticised' as I spelt it before.

 

crit·i·cize <script>play_w2("C0753100")</script><object style="margin: 3px 3px 5px;" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" height="13" width="10">



<embed style="margin-bottom: 4px;" src="http://img.tfd.com/play.swf" flashvars="soundpath=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/C0753100" menu="false" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" height="13" width="10"></object> (krt-sz)v. crit·i·cized, crit·i·ciz·ing, crit·i·ciz·es
v.tr.1. To find fault with: criticized the decision as unrealistic. See Usage Note at critique.
2. To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.

v.intr. To act as a critic.

also you have yet to point out the people who criticized me

 

If you're American, then yes you are spelling it correctly.

If you are British, then it's spelt criticised.

I think it's page 4, read Hut*Hut's post.

 

if you call this criticism then you need to find the meaning in the dictionary mate


also prove that its spelled criticised

 

Yeah but he blatantly thought your posts were wrong.

Look in a dictionary for it. Or type it into google and see the headlines. Either way, looking back on your posts it is very hypocritical to bring up grammar/spelling.