a time machine

Mick_SGC · Post by **Mick_SGC** » Thu 01 May, 2008 6:46 pm

I'd go back as far as I could to stop the sread of religion and build a world of love science and unity!Even though I would most likely be talked about on some forum in the future as some wizzard who was mad and claimed to be from "leeds" I'd also go back a hundred years, take a picture of the view where I am now and keep going back and make the best dam slide show ever. I love my view, I love my Valley!!!

Mick_SGC · Post by **Mick_SGC** » Thu 01 May, 2008 6:54 pm

Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea

wiggy · Post by **wiggy** » Thu 01 May, 2008 7:10 pm

Mick_SGC wrote: Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea I'D GO BACK A COUPLE OF HOURS AND THREATEN THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDANT PANEL WITH THIER LIVES...WHEN I GOT BACK WE WOULD BE PROMOTED!! (RANT OVER WITH).....YEAH WELL CARRY ON THEN..

Trojan · Post by **Trojan** » Thu 01 May, 2008 10:40 pm

wiggy wrote: Mick_SGC wrote: Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea I'D GO BACK A COUPLE OF HOURS AND THREATEN THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDANT PANEL WITH THIER LIVES...WHEN I GOT BACK WE WOULD BE PROMOTED!! (RANT OVER WITH).....YEAH WELL CARRY ON THEN.. It's tennis that's decided in a court not football. If Leeds's clam had been upheld then Doncaster (for starters) would have challenged it in the High Court - I think the panel decided not to open a can of worms. If Mr Bates had stuck to the rules they'd only have lost 10 points serves him right. (I'm not really a soccer fan but I'd like to see Leeds promoted)

simonm · Post by **simonm** » Thu 01 May, 2008 11:26 pm

Trojan wrote: wiggy wrote: Mick_SGC wrote: Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea I'D GO BACK A COUPLE OF HOURS AND THREATEN THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDANT PANEL WITH THIER LIVES...WHEN I GOT BACK WE WOULD BE PROMOTED!! (RANT OVER WITH).....YEAH WELL CARRY ON THEN.. It's tennis that's decided in a court not football. If Leeds's clam had been upheld then Doncaster (for starters) would have challenged it in the High Court - I think the panel decided not to open a can of worms. If Mr Bates had stuck to the rules they'd only have lost 10 points serves him right. (I'm not really a soccer fan but I'd like to see Leeds promoted) Bates did stick to the Rules, but the IR decided they wanted to look further into the dealings and found NOTHING untoward. However their actions delayed the production of the CVA, thus enabling the bent FL to announce an unheard of rule, even asking other football clubs FFS about what penalty they should impose!!!!! The only people causing problems was the FL in their inept administration. Really winds me up everyone blaming LUAFC for this debacle when the real idiots causing problems is the FL.. Mawhinney is as bent as they come.

Trojan · Post by **Trojan** » Fri 02 May, 2008 12:57 am

simonm wrote: Trojan wrote: wiggy wrote: Mick_SGC wrote: Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea I'D GO BACK A COUPLE OF HOURS AND THREATEN THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDANT PANEL WITH THIER LIVES...WHEN I GOT BACK WE WOULD BE PROMOTED!! (RANT OVER WITH).....YEAH WELL CARRY ON THEN.. It's tennis that's decided in a court not football. If Leeds's clam had been upheld then Doncaster (for starters) would have challenged it in the High Court - I think the panel decided not to open a can of worms. If Mr Bates had stuck to the rules they'd only have lost 10 points serves him right. (I'm not really a soccer fan but I'd like to see Leeds promoted) Bates did stick to the Rules, but the IR decided they wanted to look further into the dealings and found NOTHING untoward. However their actions delayed the production of the CVA, thus enabling the bent FL to announce an unheard of rule, even asking other football clubs FFS about what penalty they should impose!!!!! The only people causing problems was the FL in their inept administration. Really winds me up everyone blaming LUAFC for this debacle when the real idiots causing problems is the FL.. Mawhinney is as bent as they come. Isn't that a rather libelous statement?

Post by **cnosni** » Fri 02 May, 2008 1:08 am

wiggy wrote: Mick_SGC wrote: Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea I'D GO BACK A COUPLE OF HOURS AND THREATEN THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDANT PANEL WITH THIER LIVES...WHEN I GOT BACK WE WOULD BE PROMOTED!! (RANT OVER WITH).....YEAH WELL CARRY ON THEN.. Wiggy,just imagine that we win promotion now on the back of our play off results,that would shut them all up mate.Even Bates,as an outsider,must acknowledge the negative bias that Leeds recieves.

simonm · Post by **simonm** » Fri 02 May, 2008 9:48 am

Trojan wrote: simonm wrote: Trojan wrote: wiggy wrote: Mick_SGC wrote: Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea I'D GO BACK A COUPLE OF HOURS AND THREATEN THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDANT PANEL WITH THIER LIVES...WHEN I GOT BACK WE WOULD BE PROMOTED!! (RANT OVER WITH).....YEAH WELL CARRY ON THEN.. It's tennis that's decided in a court not football. If Leeds's clam had been upheld then Doncaster (for starters) would have challenged it in the High Court - I think the panel decided not to open a can of worms. If Mr Bates had stuck to the rules they'd only have lost 10 points serves him right. (I'm not really a soccer fan but I'd like to see Leeds promoted) Bates did stick to the Rules, but the IR decided they wanted to look further into the dealings and found NOTHING untoward. However their actions delayed the production of the CVA, thus enabling the bent FL to announce an unheard of rule, even asking other football clubs FFS about what penalty they should impose!!!!! The only people causing problems was the FL in their inept administration. Really winds me up everyone blaming LUAFC for this debacle when the real idiots causing problems is the FL.. Mawhinney is as bent as they come. Isn't that a rather libelous statement? Maybe, maybe not. His hatred of Bates was evident for all to see at the start of the season and he PUBLICLY said as much!! Seems very odd to me that he openly states he hates Bates then this wierd rule of deducting points (one that was made up just before they imposed it) comes along.

simonm · Post by **simonm** » Fri 02 May, 2008 9:49 am

cnosni wrote: wiggy wrote: Mick_SGC wrote: Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea I'D GO BACK A COUPLE OF HOURS AND THREATEN THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDANT PANEL WITH THIER LIVES...WHEN I GOT BACK WE WOULD BE PROMOTED!! (RANT OVER WITH).....YEAH WELL CARRY ON THEN.. Wiggy,just imagine that we win promotion now on the back of our play off results,that would shut them all up mate.Even Bates,as an outsider,must acknowledge the negative bias that Leeds recieves. My only concern with that is that LUFC have never fared well in play offs.

Si · Post by Si » Fri 02 May, 2008 10:29 am

simonm wrote: cnosni wrote: wiggy wrote: Mick_SGC wrote: Now I'd go back a few minutes, right before I nearly zapped my computer with my cup of tea I'D GO BACK A COUPLE OF HOURS AND THREATEN THAT SO CALLED INDEPENDANT PANEL WITH THIER LIVES...WHEN I GOT BACK WE WOULD BE PROMOTED!! (RANT OVER WITH).....YEAH WELL CARRY ON THEN.. Wiggy,just imagine that we win promotion now on the back of our play off results,that would shut them all up mate.Even Bates,as an outsider,must acknowledge the negative bias that Leeds recieves. My only concern with that is that LUFC have never fared well in play offs. Oh, Simon - you've gone and done it now!!!