Wigan

Wigan

Post by Mike Patterso » Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:47:32



Quote:



>> Of course - everybody else is wrong and you are always right, Andy?

> If you can't work your way around the interent to find these basic facts
> out like I have, there are evening classes for those afraid of computers
> and the interent. :-D

Also Spelling
 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Wigan/Leeds And » Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:14:14


Quote:





>>> Of course - everybody else is wrong and you are always right, Andy?

>> If you can't work your way around the interent to find these basic facts
>> out like I have, there are evening classes for those afraid of computers
>> and the interent. :-D

> Also Spelling

Thanks for your valuable contribution - no really.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Lloyd Barkha » Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:35:56


Quote:



>> Of course - everybody else is wrong and you are always right, Andy?

> No you're just more than usually wrong, and you're proving it yet again
> below.

>> As far as I've read, the RFL allowed some of the 222k to be moved to
>> 2007 that's why they were only 6% over the cap. Therefore as I've already
>> stated Wigan start with a negative for this year. If this is not true,
>> please point me to where I can find what's really happened rather than
>> just having to take your word for it.

>> Lloyd

> You can't read then and you obviously still haven't got the calculating
> working properly either - no surprise there then, LOL.

> The whole reason Wigan have been penalised with breaching the cap is to do
> with the 222k deferred payments.  Wigan claim to have renegotiated
> contracts for 9 players so they deferred 222k of their 2006 pay and will
> get it paid in 2007.

> The tribunal have ruled against this, so the 222k they were going to pay
> this year against te 2007 cap has to count in 2006, hence why Wigan are
> 222k and therefore 6.3% over = 4 points deduction.

> Now if suddenly they were accounting for these deferred payments against
> the 2007 cap, but have now been told they are 2006 they should have plenty
> of room this year now.  What the hell are you going on about a negative
> position?

> If you can't work your way around the interent to find these basic facts
> out like I have, there are evening classes for those afraid of computers
> and the interent. :-D

Typically abusive and incoherent.

lloyd

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Lloyd Barkha » Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:37:17


Quote:



>> Of course - everybody else is wrong and you are always right, Andy?

> No you're just more than usually wrong, and you're proving it yet again
> below.

>> As far as I've read, the RFL allowed some of the 222k to be moved to
>> 2007
>> that's why they were only 6% over the cap. Therefore as I've already
>> stated Wigan start with a negative for this year. If this is not true,
>> please point me to where I can find what's really happened rather than
>> just having to take your word for it.

>> Lloyd

> You can't read then and you obviously still haven't got the calculating
> working properly either - no surprise there then, LOL.

> The whole reason Wigan have been penalised with breaching the cap is to do
> with the 222k deferred payments.  Wigan claim to have renegotiated
> contracts for 9 players so they deferred 222k of their 2006 pay and will
> get it paid in 2007.

> The tribunal have ruled against this, so the 222k they were going to pay
> this year against te 2007 cap has to count in 2006, hence why Wigan are
> 222k and therefore 6.3% over = 4 points deduction.

> Now if suddenly they were accounting for these deferred payments against
> the
> 2007 cap, but have now been told they are 2006 they should have plenty of
> room this year now.  What the hell are you going on about a negative
> position?

> If you can't work your way around the interent to find these basic facts
> out
> like I have, there are evening classes for those afraid of computers and
> the
> interent. :-D

Posted twice? Who can't use the interent (sic) ?

Lloyd

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Wigan/Leeds And » Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:31:17


Quote:
> Typically abusive and incoherent.

> lloyd

TRANSLATION - Lloyd didn't have a clue what he was talking about until shown
up by Wigan/Leeds Andy.

His only comeback on a number of issues of fact he was questioning was the
above.  LOL.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Wigan/Leeds And » Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:32:51


Quote:

> Posted twice? Who can't use the interent (sic) ?

> Lloyd

Newsgroups aren't the "internet". LOL.

You definitely need those evening classes.

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Lloyd Barkha » Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:02:38


Quote:



>> Posted twice? Who can't use the interent (sic) ?

>> Lloyd

> Newsgroups aren't the "internet". LOL.

> You definitely need those evening classes.

Sad, so sad!!
 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Alf Kin » Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:05:16

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:02:38 +0100, "Lloyd Barkham"

Quote:





>>> Posted twice? Who can't use the interent (sic) ?

>>> Lloyd

>> Newsgroups aren't the "internet". LOL.

>> You definitely need those evening classes.

>Sad, so sad!!

When the depths of argument that are plumbed by a poster are to accuse
you of being a liar, as Andy did to me, then the only option is to
confine them to your filter bin and get on with sensible discussions
with those who can participate in sensible debate.

Alf King

 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Wigan/Leeds And » Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:06:03


Quote:
> When the depths of argument that are plumbed by a poster are to accuse
> you of being a liar, as Andy did to me, then the only option is to
> confine them to your filter bin and get on with sensible discussions
> with those who can participate in sensible debate.

> Alf King

Ah yes the filter bin. Used as a cop-out by those who like sticking their
head in the sand when an argument isn't going their way.
 
 
 

Wigan

Post by Wigan/Leeds And » Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:08:36


Quote:
> Sad, so sad!!

I'm starting to see a pattern to your posts when you get something wrong
Lloyd, in a way that a 7 year old would be embarrassed.