hypochondriac Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I doubt they'll fall for your creeping though. Tony Lynam would be well advised to not be taken in by you either. No creeping just trying to keep dross and trolling of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 1 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2009 No creeping just trying to keep dross and trolling of the forum. So what was trolling about asking for provisions for smokers, and what was trolling in stating that admin was required to bring about a new dawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I agree. Hopefully they will. Here's a novel idea....taking a leaf out of FC's book..........if you don't like this thread, don't post on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Here's a novel idea....taking a leaf out of FC's book..........if you don't like this thread, don't post on it. I suppose that goes for everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Right...that's 15mins of my life I'll never get back reading this thread... I thought we were getting over this sh1te?? Yes, I was one of the 'rabid' anti-Loweites, attended both marches blah blah blah... But...we stand on the cusp of a new and hopefully brighter future... Why oh why would we want to tarnish that by bringing all the old crap up BEFORE the deal is concluded?? Bournemouth had more than one false bit of hope...remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 1 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Right...that's 15mins of my life I'll never get back reading this thread... I thought we were getting over this sh1te?? Yes, I was one of the 'rabid' anti-Loweites, attended both marches blah blah blah... But...we stand on the cusp of a new and hopefully brighter future... Why oh why would we want to tarnish that by bringing all the old crap up BEFORE the deal is concluded?? Bournemouth had more than one false bit of hope...remember that. In hindsight I should have realised than many on here wouldn't be mature enough to see the wood for the tree. If this thread was put up in a years time i'm sure that realism would have sunk in. The crux is that for years we've been discussing when we'd hit rock bottom. We hit it and we're now past it now. Mike Wilde bringing back Lowe was rock bottom, but looking back it was the turning point because although we subsequently got relegated and have a points deduction, the wheels were set in motion and like a runaway train the dye was set for admin and a new dawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 In hindsight I should have realised than many on here wouldn't be mature enough to see the wood for the tree. If this thread was put up in a years time i'm sure that realism would have sunk in. The crux is that for years we've been discussing when we'd hit rock bottom. We hit it and we're now past it now. Mike Wilde bringing back Lowe was rock bottom, but looking back it was the turning point because although we subsequently got relegated and have a points deduction, the wheels were set in motion and like a runaway train the dye was set for admin and a new dawn. Stanley, don't misunderstand me on this. I wanted Lowe gone just as much as you - in fact on the Protest threads I stated as much, actually even making it known that I felt we were in fact protesting about the wrong man....it was never Lowe that needed the attention...it should have been the likes of Askham.... BUT, we are where we are, hopefully we will never see Lowe, Askham or Wilde darken the corridors of StMarys again, but I will hold my breath until the contracts have been signed and we know it is really happening... What would be worse now, would be a la Bournemouth, when you have Mostyn on his way back in through the back door... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 But can't you see that they also believed that what they were doing was in the best long term interests of the Club??? I'm not going into whether they were right or wrong to hold that view, (as ultimately they felt they had to do what they did), or how many it involved, but I find it hard to understand why you can't accept they had every right to hold that view.I am not saying they had no right to hold that view - you are putting words into my mouth. All I am saying is that IMHO withholding financial support from the club was short-sighted, moreover doing so and now claiming that everything that has happened since (administration, 10 point deduction et al) was part of their strategic thinking in doing so. I think it was just sheer bloody mindedness for the most part. I admit that that end result may actually be the best thing to happen to SFC for some time, but I do not accept people claiming that this outcome (if it does work out) was what they envisaged would happen. We came far too close to oblivion for anyone to have been confident they did the right thing. Claiming so now is just doing so with the benefit of hindsight - premature gloating perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 1 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I am not saying they had no right to hold that view - you are putting words into my mouth. All I am saying is that IMHO withholding financial support from the club was short-sighted, moreover doing so and now claiming that everything that has happened since (administration, 10 point deduction et al) was part of their strategic thinking in doing so. Boycotting to force the club into admin to facilitate a clean sweep and a takeover was in my strategic planning. I have been saying as such for long enough. Few agreed with me, but when we look back in a few years time it will be shown that i was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Boycotting to force the club into admin to facilitate a clean sweep and a takeover was in my strategic planning. I have been saying as such for long enough. Few agreed with me, but when we look back in a few years time it will be shown that i was right.In a few years time I doubt very much whether anyone will be remotely interested in what you predicted on a forum to which a few hundred fans subscribe. However, I sincerely hope that you do not end up with a large egg on your face in 18-19 days time. After all, disagreements aside, we all want the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 (edited) I respect your decision. That is not an answer. Are you saying that those who went to games shouldn`t have? Were they misguided? What is your opinion? Sorry, you don`t have opinions - you spout facts. So were the people that went to games wrong to do so? Edited 1 June, 2009 by miserableoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 All I am saying is that IMHO withholding financial support from the club was short-sighted, moreover doing so and now claiming that everything that has happened since (administration, 10 point deduction et al) was part of their strategic thinking in doing so. I think it was just sheer bloody mindedness for the most part. And they would counter that they were witholding their financial support as they did not want to prop up a regime which they believed was not in the best long term interests of the Club. That's not bloody mindedness, that's holding and supporting a very valid point of view. It may not be one that you believe in, it may have been right or it may have been wrong (and it may have been 10's or 1000's), but I certainly wouldn't call it bloody mindedness as it is very much a valid stance IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 And they would counter that they were witholding their financial support as they did not want to prop up a regime which they believed was not in the best long term interests of the Club.OK - we've veered off the point slightly. Do you think that the people (however many) who thought this way were confident that they done the right thing when we were (and maybe still are) teetering on the brink - i.e. before last Friday's announcement? If the worst happens, would they all be gloating about how they had acted in the long term interests of the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 OK - we've veered off the point slightly. Do you think that the people (however many) who thought this way were confident that they done the right thing when we were (and maybe still are) teetering on the brink - i.e. before last Friday's announcement? If the worst happens, would they all be gloating about how they had acted in the long term interests of the club? I don't think any Saints fan would be happy that we found ourselves in such a precarious position last Friday, not least those who would argue they made the ultimate sacrifice. They would probably argue that following the abject failure that was last season, then their stance was vindicated as their belief that Lowe & co were not the way forward was proved to be correct. They could also argue that had more people taken their stance then the madness of last season may have been nipped in the bud earlier. Of course it's very difficult talking on behalf of other people, but I certainly wouldn't call their actions bloody mindedness as they probably didn't believe their actions to be stubbornly obstructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 (edited) I am going to take your advice:- 30-05-2009, 02:05 PM Stanley Full Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,353 30-05-2009, 02:08 PM Edited 1 June, 2009 by miserableoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I don't think any Saints fan would be happy that we found ourselves in such a precarious position last Friday, not least those who would argue they made the ultimate sacrifice. They would probably argue that following the abject failure that was last season, then their stance was vindicated as their belief that Lowe & co were not the way forward was proved to be correct. They could also argue that had more people taken their stance then the madness of last season may have been nipped in the bud earlier. Of course it's very difficult talking on behalf of other people, but I certainly wouldn't call their actions bloody mindedness as they probably didn't believe their actions to be stubbornly obstructive. Blimey - are you in politics or something? This is a place for rash argument, not reasoned understanding of every view/opinion on display :-) OK, I will concede that many people acted in what they thought was the best long term interest of the club whether I like it or not. Some undoubtedly did it because of a bloody-minded hatred of RL with little thought of the possible outcome. Will you concede that point? Either way, I think this thread was an invitation for people to gloat with the benefit of hindsight, when in actual fact that may be premature. I sincerely hope that they are right of course, because that will mean we have a future to look forward to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommi Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Superb, so here we are, a bright new dawn and you tossers are still on here arguing over 500 fans at most who supposedly boycotted because of Lowe?! athe other XXXX thousand or so didn't go because we were ****e, in the middle of the biggest financial depression of all time and bloody expensive! Why do we have to drag all this **** up, you can't change the past but you can change the future.... get with the programme, get behind the club, board, players, new owners, fellow fans and move on, together, united. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Superb, so here we are, a bright new dawn and you tossers are still on here arguing over 500 fans at most who supposedly boycotted because of Lowe?! athe other XXXX thousand or so didn't go because we were ****e, in the middle of the biggest financial depression of all time and bloody expensive! Why do we have to drag all this **** up, you can't change the past but you can change the future.... get with the programme, get behind the club, board, players, new owners, fellow fans and move on, together, united. Ask Stanley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Blimey - are you in politics or something? This is a place for rash argument, not reasoned understanding of every view/opinion on display :-) OK, I will concede that many people acted in what they thought was the best long term interest of the club whether I like it or not. Some undoubtedly did it because of a bloody-minded hatred of RL with little thought of the possible outcome. Will you concede that point? Either way, I think this thread was an invitation for people to gloat with the benefit of hindsight, when in actual fact that may be premature. I sincerely hope that they are right of course, because that will mean we have a future to look forward to. I totally agree that some stayed away out of sheer bloody mindedness, or even hatred of Lowe, but my defence was aimed at those "true" boycotters who did something they believed in. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, as ultimately everyone has to be responsible for their own actions. I also don't really see the point of this thread, as we really should have moved on by now and to be honest I wasn't really going to bother posting on it until I saw your post having a pop at your fellow fans. Everyone has the right to do what they feel is right for them. We really should have moved on and TBH the OP isn't/wasn't necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I think the actions of the fans staying away were a contributing factor to Lowe's very quick removal by the bank once he bounced the cheques. Some may recall that Barclays stated that one of the reasons for calling in administration was due to Lowe's failure to deliver an increase in gates. So actually, Stanley has a point. Was it right to stay away? Who knows. But against such a stubborn enemy as Lowe it certainly was a contributing factor to his final removal forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I totally agree that some stayed away out of sheer bloody mindedness, or even hatred of Lowe, but my defence was aimed at those "true" boycotters who did something they believed in. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, as ultimately everyone has to be responsible for their own actions. I also don't really see the point of this thread, as we really should have moved on by now and to be honest I wasn't really going to bother posting on it until I saw your post having a pop at your fellow fans. Everyone has the right to do what they feel is right for them. We really should have moved on and TBH the OP isn't/wasn't necessary.I don't think I was alone in the "pop" to which you allude ;-) In fact, reading back, I was waving goodbye to this deliberate wind-up several pages back. Can't remember what dragged me back to be honest. Time to have another go....:smt039 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I think the actions of the fans staying away were a contributing factor to Lowe's very quick removal by the bank once he bounced the cheques. Some may recall that Barclays stated that one of the reasons for calling in administration was due to Lowe's failure to deliver an increase in gates. So actually, Stanley has a point. Was it right to stay away? Who knows. But against such a stubborn enemy as Lowe it certainly was a contributing factor to his final removal forever. His argument is that they all stayed away as part of a concerted "boycott" to shift Lowe. The vast majority stayed away because the "product" was crap. "Customer" not happy with the product. I have no problem with people staying away for whatever reason but to make it something it isn`t is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 1 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2009 His argument is that they all stayed away as part of a concerted "boycott" to shift Lowe. The vast majority stayed away because the "product" was crap. "Customer" not happy with the product. I have no problem with people staying away for whatever reason but to make it something it isn`t is ridiculous. There were many many Saints fans who opposed Lowe and to dismiss this as being a reason for the boycott is naive. That said the bungling appointments of the dutch rejects delivered a crap product and Lowe made that happen so ultimately we come full circle back to Lowe anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I am sure you would suck yourself off if you could. After all this post is just smacks of Stanley self gratification to me! to true we are on the verge of unitey has fans and then the divisive element like stanley start another thread about lowe, i hated the fact we had so called fans who wanted us to lose games last season . stanley if you love lowe so much go and live with the **** and the rest of us can feel happy that you are soulmates.:smt055 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Superb, so here we are, a bright new dawn and you tossers are still on here arguing over 500 fans at most who supposedly boycotted because of Lowe?! athe other XXXX thousand or so didn't go because we were ****e, in the middle of the biggest financial depression of all time and bloody expensive! Why do we have to drag all this **** up, you can't change the past but you can change the future.... get with the programme, get behind the club, board, players, new owners, fellow fans and move on, together, united. amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 to true we are on the verge of unitey has fans and then the divisive element like stanley start another thread about lowe, i hated the fact we had so called fans who wanted us to lose games last season . stanley if you love lowe so much go and live with the **** and the rest of us can feel happy that you are soulmates.:smt055Dodgy spelling aside, you confused the hell out of me there :confused: Whatever Stanley is, he doesn't come across as someone in love with RL - or have I missed some subtle irony in your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I'm a simple person, but hasn't this administration basically enabled to us to pick up a modern, state of the art (ok it may not be unique) stadium for an incredibly low cost. Did we even pay £10m for it in the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Boycotting to force the club into admin to facilitate a clean sweep and a takeover was in my strategic planning. I have been saying as such for long enough. Few agreed with me, but when we look back in a few years time it will be shown that i was right. you, genius who pulls the strings, pity that you didnt then muster full houses after we went into admin and lowe had departed. you, oh wise one, may then have ensured we won our remaining games and started next season on parity...or didnt the less than impressive attendances after charlton simply demonstrate that there are 101 reasons why people havent been turning up to games and 101 reasons why we went into admin. yours humbly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Nope many folk stayed away - that was obvious from teh agte - what was oft debated was how many or how few of thse were genuinely staywing away becaus eof Lowe versus just because we were crap - vast majority because we were crap IMHO as witnessed by a sell out when Man U played... How many stayed away when we (unde Lowe) played in the Cup Final??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 How many stayed away when we (unde Lowe) played in the Cup Final??? 374 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I don't think anyone (apart from the resident troll) has too much of a problem with people not being able to justify spending their hard earned money on total rubbish. Beyond the die hards you need a good reason to attract the next tranche of supporters and last season we failed to do that. Everyone supports the Club in their own way and I don't think it is right for anyone to judge whether that way is right or wrong, as ultimatley it's right for them. But can't you see that they also believed that what they were doing was in the best long term interests of the Club??? I'm not going into whether they were right or wrong to hold that view, (as ultimately they felt they had to do what they did), or how many it involved, but I find it hard to understand why you can't accept they had every right to hold that view. Why do you find it so hard to accept the alternative view. I think it is more than reasonable to question the resolution of any supporter who simply withdraws their support based on a personality. At least the plastics admit they only want to watch Premier League rather than manufacture excuses and dress themselves as being ever so slightly smug and superior to the rest of us. For the record John Smith its never tough supporting my club even if I have to dig myself out of a 6 foot snow drift to attend a game like the Sheff Utd when I just made it to join the crowd and balance the numbers on the two benches. To add to your pain you can stuff your sympathy back where it belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I'm a simple person, but hasn't this administration basically enabled to us to pick up a modern, state of the art (ok it may not be unique) stadium for an incredibly low cost. Did we even pay £10m for it in the end? The stadium that Rupert built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Superb, so here we are, a bright new dawn and you tossers are still on here arguing over 500 fans at most who supposedly boycotted because of Lowe?! athe other XXXX thousand or so didn't go because we were ****e, in the middle of the biggest financial depression of all time and bloody expensive! Why do we have to drag all this **** up, you can't change the past but you can change the future.... get with the programme, get behind the club, board, players, new owners, fellow fans and move on, together, united. How was SaintAid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 How was SaintAid? http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/member.php?u=2982 ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/member.php?u=2982 ???? Hope he doesn't log in anytime soon as he will wonder wtf a mod and a troll have been doing sussing out his profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 The stadium that Rupert built. Thought it was common knowledge that Andrew Cowan was the mastermind behind St Marys ? Check your facts pal. Oh, by the way, dont forget we only ended up there cos your hero moved the goalposts over Stoneham and wanted a bloody hotel, cinema and god knows what else chucked into the mix !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Asperger's is still a mystery to us. I'd like to take Stanley to a casino, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Thought it was common knowledge that Andrew Cowan was the mastermind behind St Marys ? Check your facts pal. Oh, by the way, dont forget we only ended up there cos your hero moved the goalposts over Stoneham and wanted a bloody hotel, cinema and god knows what else chucked into the mix !! Clearly not that common. Who was AC's boss? The buck stops at the top and so do the plaudits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 This is total nonsense. The reason that crowds fell was due to the very poor standard of displays on the pitch. This coupled with the current financial meltdown made going to Saints matches a very good way of throwing your money down the drain. I have a ST and even I found it hard to go at times despite having paid my money up front. There was NO real anti-Lowe boycott that effected crowd sizes. There were a few "vocal" posters on here who made a big deal of their staying away because of Lowe, that is all. Mind you I suspect that you only posted this to get a reaction, so in that respect you should be happy. I don't suppose there was more than 1,500 who specifically didn't go because of Lowe. It was the stay aways that caused the demise of Lowe. And they stayed away because of the poor displays on the pitch which was due to Lowes policies of bringing in Dutch no-hopers. Hoisted by his own petard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Clearly not that common. Who was AC's boss? The buck stops at the top and so do the plaudits. Presumably then so does the blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Clearly not that common. Who was AC's boss? The buck stops at the top and so do the plaudits. That is rich coming from you of all people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Presumably then so does the blame? Blame or buck samething isn't it? Are you deliberately trying to raise my post count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Blame or buck samething isn't it? Are you deliberately trying to raise my post count? Perish the thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 I don't suppose there was more than 1,500 who specifically didn't go because of Lowe. It was the stay aways that caused the demise of Lowe. And they stayed away because of the poor displays on the pitch which was due to Lowes policies of bringing in Dutch no-hopers. Hoisted by his own petard.[/QUOTE] This forum is undoubtedly delivering better educated posters. A nice turn of phrase Docker-P no doubt courtesy of a black cherried Pomerol or mouth filling St Estephe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 That is rich coming from you of all people. You don't think we'll be walking down Rupert Lowe Way on match days then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emerson massey Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Everyone has their own opinion, some stayed away, some because of him(as proved by people posting), others for different reasons (including myself) Some people still wanted to go and support no matter what Who gives a ****? We are all saints fans, there is no specific way to support a club, you do it however you want because you enjoy it These are all moot points, we are where we are, which is rock bottom and we need to move on form this travesty of a few years, no matter what you think caused it Debate is good but this is bordering on the surreal All imho of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 1 June, 2009 Share Posted 1 June, 2009 Bloody hell, does Stanley talk some sh*te. But seeing as he's a racist we should expect it reallly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFM Posted 2 June, 2009 Share Posted 2 June, 2009 Everyone has their own opinion, some stayed away, some because of him(as proved by people posting), others for different reasons (including myself) Some people still wanted to go and support no matter what Who gives a ****? We are all saints fans, there is no specific way to support a club, you do it however you want because you enjoy it These are all moot points, we are where we are, which is rock bottom and we need to move on form this travesty of a few years, no matter what you think caused it Debate is good but this is bordering on the surreal All imho of course And a vey good opinion IMO EM. But it's good to see that the potential hope and future we have now has united fans once again eh?! No more bickering on here it seems :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 2 June, 2009 Share Posted 2 June, 2009 I've changed my mind, this is a really good thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 2 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 June, 2009 Bloody hell, does Stanley talk some sh*te. But seeing as he's a racist we should expect it reallly. How old are you? I'd guess at you being a gobby 18-21 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now