• ****Join the YF Fantasy EFL League: HERE. ****

Current Staff Proper question for a poll to inform the OUFC board of our belief K. Robinson should be summarily dismissed

Paul Cannell

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
7,718
The problem with we (as a confederation of true OUFC supporters) "do not have faith in The Acting Manager*" is that it's too loose.

A SCAM diehard supporter like @Scotchegg** will answer yes because, well, he is convinced that SCAM will lead the line - as Gracie sang "Sing as we go, we're marching on to glory". Which is fair enough.

However we have to protect the integrity of the poll against sportive disputators, like @tatabanya, who will rightly express that they have faith in SCAM's existence - after all, they have seen his works*** and tremble before them and maintain that is sufficient that he, SCAM, exists to answer yes without regard to the implicit issue of faith that he, SCAM, is a fit representative of the club off the pitch and an manager who can fulfil the board's (OUFC board) will to play football in a higher league.

Furthermore, there are the telephone box agitators, like @horseman ****, who assume disputatious positions to loftily disagree. Their standard hobby-horse ***** is SCAM may be a pretty poor specimen but hang on, it could be worse - we could have Robbie Fowler, Sam Allardyce or the Boston Strangler. Pretty convincing and they'll do it anyway but that, gentlemen (and the others) is a reason to strengthen the proposition.


If anyone's still with me here, I propose, eschewing fashionable double negatives, "We, the true supporters of Oxford United, are convinced that Karl Robinson, bein a negative role-model for OUFC off the pitch and incapable of creating a team on the pitch that can progress up the Football League, should be removed from his position immediately."





* As I can't be bothered to write this phrase repeatedly I will use the acronym SCAM (Scouser Currently Acting Manager) which has the merit of being accurate in at least 2 descriptive ways as well as short.

** I know he says he's not, but I also know he's a humble sort of guy who loves a joke, specially when it's on him :)

*** The 65-minute substitution rule, the mad waste of transfer money and talent, spurned players sobbing in the changing rooms during training, simple tactical ineptitude and folly, the spare time and recreational activities whose names we dare not utter, you get the idea.

**** Speaking of whom, someone once asked me if I liked his posts; all I could say was "I've never managed to read a whole one." Only joshing ;)

***** cf Uncle Toby, Tristram Shandy. Read it!
 
Last edited:
The question this poses is of course is "What, exactly, is footnote ** referring to? There appears to be no marker for it in the main body text". Without this information I find it difficult to formulate an appropriate response.
 
The question this poses is of course is "What, exactly, is footnote ** referring to? There appears to be no marker for it in the main body text". Without this information I find it difficult to formulate an appropriate response.

Reference updated (was to adorable @Scotchegg ) of course. Do you want to proof-read all my posts?
 
@Paul Cannell You are probably correct but those poll questions are to long. We do not need yet another KR out thread. Everybody has had more than 2 years to have their say in the only "Karl out"Thread. Some repeatedly.

Pfft. This isn't a SCAM out! thread. This is a procedural debate about the best question to use in a poll designed to express the opinion of the whole wide net effectively to the board (apparently) far, far away in their ivory tower.

Please delete your post forthwith.
 
Yes. And you missed the missing footnote, why is why I'm asking the office boy to do it.
 
Reference updated (was to adorable @Scotchegg ) of course. Do you want to proof-read all my posts?
Well I do try with punctuation, but I must admit I often fail to understand a good percentage of words that you use, which would make my input less than reliable.
 
I dispute the fact that i'm always looking for disputes or to provoke arguments.

it is outrageous to type cast in such a way, a character assassination and for goodness sake Mods how have you allowed this, don't you check the posts :mad: 🤣🤣🤣

You can forget anymore Tips like that 14/1 so there😌

off to find the link for that racing forum, some guy reckons a jockey should be sacked, absolutely ridiculous😀
 
has to be the Owner surely ! he chose the Trainer, now he could go with that fella at Lambourn but will cost a lot more and there's no Guarantee in Horse Racing.
if Channon hadn't retired he would have had both bases covered, an ex footballer who trained horses but that ships sailed now.
 
No, no, no. Responsibility is delegated to the trainer for race planning and getting the best out of the horses; that said, it's arguable that the owner should have looked at the horse himself rather than take the trainer's word that it would grow it's leg back.

There may be no Guarantee in Horse Racing [sic], but V. Wright, Turf Correspondent, Wyvern Cottage, Newmarket, Suffolk informs us that his "STRICTLY OCCASIONAL LETTERS are always 'the goods'", and so it proves. I have no dog in this fight, but perhaps you would like to explore the matter with Mr Brian O'Nolan, c/o The Penguin, At Swim-Two-Birds, County Dublin or direct with Verney himself?

I'm sure Channon could do a job for us - there are so many to choose from.

Yours agreeably, P. Cannell, The Old Grange, Barking Wyld, Dorset.
 
Back
Top Bottom