TrentVilla Posted February 11, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 11, 2010 "It has nothing to do with football. Just because it was money paid by the owner of a football club to the manager of that football club, doesn't mean it had anything to do with football. Simples." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Listening to Bowtime on TalkSport earlier, they were on about the Tom Hanks movie Castaway and'Wilson' the football etc etc, when Adrian Durham starts laughing and reads out a random email from a Spudz fan. It said something like "it's not actually a football, it's a volleyball"! He was just writing in to clear things up bless him, cue guffaws around the studio, and Durhams like, what the ****? Typical kind of response (when in fact one wasn't required) you would expect from a Spudz fan innit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Last time we had the 'Spurts vs Villa' debate, the criteria was pre WW2 didn't count. I'm glad the discussion has moved on though and new evidence has come to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Still no sign of the Immortal Hulk Glaston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Glaston can't help being an idiot, all Spuds fans are, a few years ago, a friend of mine who unfortunatley supports them was being cocky and asked me "What have Villa won in the last 25 years?" so my reply was "The League, the European Cup, the European Super Cup and two League Cups, how about Tottenham" he couldn't reply, he was well put in his place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Glaston can't help being an idiot, all Spuds fans are, a few years ago, a friend of mine who unfortunatley supports them was being cocky and asked me "What have Villa won in the last 25 years?" so my reply was "The League, the European Cup, the European Super Cup and two League Cups, how about Tottenham" he couldn't reply, he was well put in his place Yeah Spurs fans in general seem a bit thick. I remember a couple of them came into where i worked and asked who i support. I said Villa. They said they feel sorry for me, I said how can a Spurs fan feel sorry for a Villa fan?? He said "because you've never won anything". I said we were the 4th most successful club in English football history. I said weve won 7 titles, a european cup 7 FA cups and 5 league cups. What have spurs done i asked. " we were the first club to ever win the double in 61" he said. No you wasn't i said but didn't bother to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Glaston can't help being an idiot, all Spuds fans are, a few years ago, a friend of mine who unfortunatley supports them was being cocky and asked me "What have Villa won in the last 25 years?" so my reply was "The League, the European Cup, the European Super Cup and two League Cups, how about Tottenham" he couldn't reply, he was well put in his place Yeah Spurs fans in general seem a bit thick. I remember a couple of them came into where i worked and asked who i support. I said Villa. They said they feel sorry for me, I said how can a Spurs fan feel sorry for a Villa fan?? He said "because you've never won anything". I said we were the 4th most successful club in English football history. I said weve won 7 titles, a european cup 7 FA cups and 5 league cups. What have spurs done i asked. " we were the first club to ever win the double in 61" he said. No you wasn't i said but didn't bother to explain. Ahh but when we did the very first double, that was before the 80s, so ofcurse, that doesn't count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GasGasGas Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 And some people wonder why your not liked around here. This whole thread is an attempt to "dish it out" to Spurs. If you didn't like my justified - and entirely accurate - response, then what does that dislike say except that you like dishing it out, but object to taking it back. At least I don't continuously attempt to personalise the issue - I try to keep the focus on football. This attempt to "dish it out" to Spurs is almost entirely down to pricks like you. I wonder how you are so blind and deluded as to not see it but looking at your posts on this forum (and others via links) it sort of explains it. I am not from England and I think you're pretty odious. Then again EVERYBODY else thinks the same (except maybe your fellow Spurs fans). Coming up with justified, accurate responses does nothing if you behave like a wierdo, nerd, moron? 95% of the other time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
under_the_bridge Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Anyone got an idea of whether Glaston ever posts after a Spurs loss? Anyone with a bit of time on their hands can look back and see if posts correlate positively with Spurs wins, or negatively with Spurs losses. Opportunistic **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_villa Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 someone seems to be missing from this thread,he must be on the missing list after last nights loss,poor fella.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GasGasGas Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 No, because in 1961 the full league structure had already been established for many decades with more or less the same number of clubs as exist today. And Manchester United and Liverpool had been in that structure for many decades prior to 1961. In the 19th century the number of competing clubs was tiny in comparison and the league structure existed only in it's infant form. I see. It's "just" that the vast majority of current clubs were non-league clubs at the time. So the fact that this meant they weren't able to compete for all these 19th century trophies is entirely irrelevant to Villa's winning them is it? Pull the other one. It's extremely pointless to go around saying "these trophies count for less because the league was in an infant form". Your reasoning is also exceedingly retarded. So in future if the top 4 were relegated, all trophies won by other clubs should be discredited because "the top 4 weren't able to compete for these trophies"? Anyway, the league was pretty much created by us so it's only natural that we won it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Ahh but when we did the very first double, that was before the 80s, so ofcurse, that doesn't count Preston did it 8 years before we did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Maybe Glaston is trying to find Spurs missing top flight league titles - after all they've only won two!!! Or perhaps he's counting Spurs European Cup wins - shouldn't take him long that one!!! Or perhaps after being given a good pasting overall in the main 2 competitions the special one is adding together the peripheral competitions! Tottenham Hotspur - 47 years out of the top flight and 15 years out of 18 out of the top 7!!! What a colossus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcgrathsknees Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Villa are an ok side. Spurs are an ok side. Glastonspur is a deluded idiot. Redknapp is a thief. (Allegedly). He does has one redeeming factor however, he gives his team some stick when they are sh!t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GasGasGas Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 ... You won the FA cup as a non-league side in 1901. So don't talk crap. You were allowed to compete ... Yes we did win the FA Cup in 1901, and remain the only non-league club ever to have done so. But we were discussing the 19th century, not the 20th. And we were discussing the 4 "league titles" that Villa won in that era (league titles that the vast majority of today's clubs were not able to compete for), not to mention the three 19th century FA Cup trophies won by Villa. Michael Schumacher won several championships while Mika Hakkinen had retired, and Lewis Hamilton was not in F1 yet. Thus these championships should not be counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Still no sign of the Immortal Hulk Glaston? He's got a life outside posting on opposition teams forums you know. Oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_villa Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Still no sign of the Immortal Hulk Glaston? He's got a life outside posting on opposition teams forums you know. Oh wait...wishfull thinking Paddy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 12, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 12, 2010 Michael Schumacher won several championships while Mika Hakkinen had retired, and Lewis Hamilton was not in F1 yet. Thus these championships should not be counted. Actually you've a point but a better analogy to Glaston's would be that Fangio's 5 world championships are meaningless because F1 was in it's infancy, a lot of the teams were amateurish and a lot of the big players that came afterwards like McLaren, Lotus, Brabham & Renault had not existed yet, therefore his titles can be dismissed in any discussion about greatest ever. Which is also of course total and utter b*ll*cks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 I wonder if Glaston has ever had a girlfriend/boyfriend/beer? Mind you, who'd have the time between dispensing such wisdom on various forums and bashing one out to pictures of Aaron Lennon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 and I would say the success of Carl Lewis is meaningless, the 100/200m track event has come on leaps and bounds since he ruled, so his success means monkey shit! Or lets say Tom Burk, he did 100m in 12 seconds pre 1900, so that meant nothing and means nothing now. Or Jim Hines, first man to break 10 seconds, held the record for 15 years, its meaningless because of how fast Bolt is now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts