• Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

  • Join OxVox

    The forum would encourage all members to consider joining OxVox during this important moment in our history. See here for more information.

Transfer Window 26/27 Summer Embargo Window



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mad Dog said:
I don't give a s**t if people think it's funny or not, ignore it then.

But if you're gonna start being rude to me for simply trying to have a joke, funny or not, then you're gonna get it back, I don't care who you are.

If you're so weak to then run away in a sulk, that's your fault for starting the unpleasantness in the first place, not mine!

I don't care how knowledgable or informed he is, it doesn't give him the right to be rude to others, who were harmlessly having a little joke.
Click to expand...

Oh you are so funny mate! šŸ„±
You deserve your own radio show!
 
Billyox said:
@Colin B point was perfectly clear selling both players would solve the problem, but that does not mean selling both is the only way to solve it. One sale plus sensible housekeeping may be enough.
You understood that. You just kept repeating ā€œso heā€™s wrong then?ā€ because you wanted a reaction. Then, when you got one, you suddenly hid behind ā€œit was only a jokeā€ while calling him a bore, weak and a rude prick.
That is not harmless banter. It is deliberately twisting someoneā€™s words, provoking them and then playing the victim when they stop tolerating it.
Colin may have been blunt, but at least he was trying to have an informed discussion. You contributed nothing except childish repetition and personal abuse. The person who needs to grow up here is not Colin.
Click to expand...
Absolute b*****s!

Nixon said if we sold both players it would solve the problem.

Another poster mentioned that Nixon always gets stuff regarding Oxford United wrong, Colin then said Nixon was right, but that we didn't need to sell both, I then jokingly said, "so he's wrong then?"

Colin then, quite unpleasantly told me to "re read" his post, like I was being stupid, and then elaborated on his original point, again saying how Nixon was right, but that we didn't need to sell both, as Nixon was suggesting.

So I, again jokingly, said, "so he's wrong then?" that's hardly me having kept repeating "so he's wrong then?" I repeated it once, in what I thought was harmless jest.
At no point did I keep repeating "so he's wrong then?" in an attempt to provoke, I repeated it once, in the context of the little harmless joke I was trying to have.

Colin then started calling me thick, and digging at my attempt to have a bit of a joke. That's when I bit back.

It was an attempt at harmless, foolishly pedantic banter, that unfortunately didn't get the giggle I thought it would, instead, it got a nasty unpleasant reaction.

To say I was provoking him is ridiculous, the only thing I was trying to provoke was a bit of humour, it certainly didn't warrant that kind of response, and I won't tolerate people being rude in response. If you're gonna be rude to me, you're gonna get it back in spades.

If he then sulks and says he's leaving the forum again, over a silly overreaction on his part to a harmless attempt at a little humour, then yes, it's he that needs to grow up.
 
dickwalton1964 said:
ā€¦. and youā€™re telling others to lighten up !

No offence but you come across as humourless and a bit of a tw*t.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense!

I'm reacting to people having a go at me for trying to have a bit of a joke!

If people don't think I'm funny, that's fine, I don't care, but if their gonna start being rude and give me s**t, I'm gonna give it back.

And it's ironic to be called humourless and a t**t, by the most miserable dick with the biggest chip on his shoulder on the entire forum!
 
Billyox said:
Just proving the point
Click to expand...
Yep, proving the point I made, that if you give me s**t, you're gonna get it back.
Billyox said:
Your joke if you can call it that wasnt actually funny
Click to expand...
Like I say, if someone didn't find my joke funny, they could've just ignored it, it didn't deserve such a rude response.

If you're gonna be rude to someone, don't moan when they're rude back.
 
Billyox said:
View attachment 36775

View attachment 36776


Just the once you say
Click to expand...
Yep, as I said, I repeated myself once.

You said I "just kept repeating" "so he's wrong then?" implying I was repeating and repeating it, to get a reaction.

But as you can see, you're wrong, and just as I said, I repeated it once, as part of my attempt at a jokey bit of humour, which I have been given a massive amount s**t for!

I'm simply standing up for myself against a barrage of grief, for trying to have a joke.
 
Colin B said:
No, Read what I said again.

Nixon said that if we sell BDK and Stan we would comply with SCMP and the embargo could be lifted, and I agree.

However, for added context I also said that I don't believe we need to sell both. Only one of them and a bit of moderate housekeeping should do it. It then depends whether we want to make some sensible additions this month as to whether we need a helping hand at that point.
Click to expand...
Wouldnā€™t then getting the Triangle finally signed off do the same thing as there are several million that would then be moved to infrastructure from where they are now as per Kieran Maguire (Cost of football).
Jesus wept I hadnā€™t fully read all the posts on here I had been watching a pleasant Ibiza sunset on YouTube.
 
Last edited:
forevayella said:
Honestly itā€™s real playground stuff on here at times. šŸ„±
Click to expand...
It is, and it's usually a bunch of posters going after one poor sod, until he backs down under the onslaught.

Well just like when dealing with bullies on the playground back in the day, I don't back down when being ganged up on, I just swing back, and keep on swinging.

I won't be vilified for trying to have a joke, and then having a go back when people start giving me s**t I don't deserve.
 
Mad Dog said:
Yep, as I said, I repeated myself once.

You said I "just kept repeating" "so he's wrong then?" implying I was repeating and repeating it, to get a reaction.

But as you can see, you're wrong, and just as I said, I repeated it once, as part of my attempt at a jokey bit of humour, which I have been given a massive amount s**t for!

I'm simply standing up for myself against a barrage of grief, for trying to have a joke.
Click to expand...

Yawn bloody yawn šŸ„±.. give it a rest, you boring ****.
 
Italian food, first cars and bad humour?!

I once told my mum that I was going to build a car out of spaghetti. She didn't believe me but you should have seen her face when I drove pasta!


ā€ā€---ā€--------ā€ā€----ā€---



Anyway, Nixon is usually shite but its true that one decent sale could well be enough to clear the embargo, two certainly would. However, doesn't mean that either/both will happen, or even if it would mean spending more this window.

Personally, I'd rather see us finally get the stadium over the line and tighten things up rather than spending more on players and potentially being in exactly the same situation a few months down the line.

But where's the fun in that shite!
 
Scotchegg said:
Italian food, first cars and bad humour?!

I once told my mum that I was going to build a car out of spaghetti. She didn't believe me but you should have seen her face when I drove pasta!


ā€ā€---ā€--------ā€ā€----ā€---



Anyway, Nixon is usually shite but its true that one decent sale could well be enough to clear the embargo, two certainly would. However, doesn't mean that either/both will happen, or even if it would mean spending more this window.

Personally, I'd rather see us finally get the stadium over the line and tighten things up rather than spending more on players and potentially being in exactly the same situation a few months down the line.

But where's the fun in that shite!
Click to expand...
Which from my understanding was always the case that selling one possibly 2 would get us back under the 65%
The real issue was putting a huge lump sum in up front instead of the staggered approach which was what happened previously
 
Billyox said:
Which from my understanding was always the case that selling one possibly 2 would get us back under the 65%
The real issue was putting a huge lump sum in up front instead of the staggered approach which was what happened previously
Click to expand...

I thought that we could spend 65% of our income and transfer fees in their entirety. Therefore, one decent sale (on top of whatever we got for Perlec) may be enough to bring us below the threshold that would lift the embargo.
 
Scotchegg said:
I thought that we could spend 65% of our income and transfer fees in their entirety. Therefore, one decent sale (on top of whatever we got for Perlec) may be enough to bring us below the threshold that would lift the embargo.
Click to expand...
65% of turnover
65% will lift the embargo
64% we can buy

But being at 64% is pretty pointless so realistically you need to be much much lower
 
Scotchegg said:
Italian food, first cars and bad humour?!

I once told my mum that I was going to build a car out of spaghetti. She didn't believe me but you should have seen her face when I drove pasta!


ā€ā€---ā€--------ā€ā€----ā€---



Anyway, Nixon is usually shite but its true that one decent sale could well be enough to clear the embargo, two certainly would. However, doesn't mean that either/both will happen, or even if it would mean spending more this window.

Personally, I'd rather see us finally get the stadium over the line and tighten things up rather than spending more on players and potentially being in exactly the same situation a few months down the line.

But where's the fun in that shite!
Click to expand...
Or. And this is a radical idea. The owner of the club could fund the club to the extent thatā€™s due?

Now I know I am probably suggesting something radical, and am likely opening myself up to criticism.
 
Scotchegg said:
Do we have to register Kent first?
Click to expand...
Well under the parameters Kent would be a 'permitted player', so the EFL are unlikely to permit us to use a spot to 'staff up' with someone from outside the club when we've already got a player with a playing contract in the building. The rules make no mention of injuries, so I don't think we can bypass his registration because of his ACL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Carpy
  • Locked
  • Featured
  • Poll Poll
Transfer Window Summer 2025 Post Transfer Window Thread
12 13 14
Replies
407
Views
44K
RgYellows
RgYellows
Carpy
  • Locked
  • Featured
  • Poll Poll
Transfer Window Summer 2025 Transfer Window Thread
551 552 553
Replies
17K
Views
2M
Up The Manor
Up The Manor
R
  • Locked
Transfer Window Summer 2025 Transfer Window Build-Up Thread
67 68 69
Replies
2K
Views
274K
Carpy
Carpy
Carpy
  • Locked
Transfer Window Summer 2024 Transfer Window Thread
332 333 334
Replies
10K
Views
2M
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
Northstandboy
Transfer Window Summer 2023 Post-Transfer Window
13 14 15
Replies
449
Views
71K
RgYellows
RgYellows
Back
Top Bottom