The Milner Novela... Final episode page 296

[pedro25]

For some reason M'ON's attitude has been striker is like right back, you don't need quality, you can just make do with whoever, Sutton, Heskey, Harewood, even Carew was a nothing to lose swapsy for Baros.  It is the most important position on the pitch.  We should at some point in the last 4 years taken a punt on some real quality.

[Concrete John]

1.  No, it's a posh way of saying 'subject of lots of discussion'.  They also seem to generate the most extreme anti-MON rhetoric.
2.  In my opinion, yes it does.  People argue we're set up to hit teams on the break and our best striker relies mainly on pace.  I don't think that's coincidence.  To play the more patient passing style a lot of us want, you need better movement upfront to make it effective, which is an area we currently lack in.  
3.  I genuinely hope we do!

[pauliewalnuts]

Mazrim (I'll avoid the quoting for sanity's sake)

All of the above is fine, but you're entirely missing my point, which is that you can say "Says who" (as you did to hawkeye)  in response to pretty much everything posted on here which is "opinion".

Like when you said we'd offered Milner that biggest-ever contract - opinion.

Like if I say I suspect Milner will probably be off. Opinion.

Hawkeye said "the simple fact is that MON needs the money more than Mancini needs Milner".

He's clearly stating an opinion, and you're clearly (including above) stating yours or putting your own interpretation on it / choosing which bits to believe, as we all do in these circumstances

You mention Pelty's rant and his point about there being no sell to buy policy. The irony is that he only said that in response to something MON said in the media which gave the impression to the contrary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm

“We are going to be linked and very obviously, even without wanting to lose players of the calibre of Milner, we would want to try and recruit some players.

“But as the chairman mentioned way back, maybe it is a case of probably having to sell to buy and that is something you would have to be really constructive about. That is something I am building into at the moment.

Do you reckon the club would ever say "yes, there's a sell to buy policy"?

Or "we need to sell Milner before we buy"?

Of course they wouldn't and they'd be damn right not to.

My point isn't that we need to sell or we don't need to sell, it is that the "says who" thing goes for everything said on here.

The points you've quoted on here are your interpretation of things that have been said. Other people will have other interpretations, but there's nothing inherently more factual about anyone's standpoint on this issue.

The long and short is, we don't know.

[Mazrim]

I'm not missing your point at all Paulie. You're determind to wedge it in here when it was never an issue to start with.
Does it really need to be explained that opinions are just that?

The only difference is when somebody is saying "The simple fact is". Whilst I accept it may be sematics and Hawkeye meant to say "my opinion is..." he didn't.
Its currently an issue I have problems with and I'm sick of seeing it repeated when there is no evidence for it.

So with respect, can we see the counter argument please if there even is one. I can't furnish my part in it with any more heavyweight evidence than quotes (not my opinions) from the owner and board member of the club and so on.

You apparently have a problem with "says who". I dont see why. Its nothing more than saying "show me where that's been said". Ive provided my side of the bargain. As I said, there's my "says who". Not my opinion, although I also gave that.


EDIT: I'm off to watch the Cricket. Can somebody do me a favour as I think this is getting a bit silly now, to say the least.
If you disagree with me, can you do provide any supporting evidence for it please. Any quotes and so on to back it up. Its pretty easily resolved I should think. If you can, I will happily withdraw.
Cheers!

[Risso]

Dear god mazrim, you said you didn't want to indulge in semantics, but are now doing that to the nth degree.  If I see someone who says "the simple fact is" I don't immediately jump to on an online encyclopaedia to check it's veracity when it's clear that what the person is stating isn't really a fact.

"The fact is that Paris is the capital of France."  A fact.  "The fact is that Heskey is a poor striker."  An opinion that people can discuss.

[pauliewalnuts]

You apparently have a problem with "says who". I dont see why. Its nothing more than saying "show me where that's been said". Ive provided my side of the bargain. As I said, there's my "says who". Not my opinion, although I also gave that.

I don't have a problem with it beyond pointing out that it's a pretty pointless response given that we have hundreds of pages of conjecture and debate on this thread and nobody is any the wiser.

re the counter argument, the thing is, you say there's no evidence for it, but I've quoted the manager above suggesting there's a sell to buy policy, you've quoted Pelty saying there isn't.

Is there one? I don't think so, I actually agree with you, but the point i was making was that there is probably a quote out there from someone involved which could be used to present anything as compelling evidence, whereas we've no idea what the truth is.

Anywhere, here's the "evidence" (your word) you asked for in your edit.

I'm not saying this is true, or not, but it is every bit as admissable as evidence as your quotes, surely?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm

“We are going to be linked and very obviously, even without wanting to lose players of the calibre of Milner, we would want to try and recruit some players.

“But as the chairman mentioned way back, maybe it is a case of probably having to sell to buy and that is something you would have to be really constructive about. That is something I am building into at the moment.

[Eigentor]

Even if the sentence starts with "the simple fact is" is should be obvious to anyone that what follows is the opinion of the writer and not a fact. Who needs what the most will always be a matter of opinion.

[Mazrim]

Dear god mazrim, you said you didn't want to indulge in semantics, but are now doing that to the nth degree.  If I see someone who says "the simple fact is" I don't immediately jump to on an online encyclopaedia to check it's veracity when it's clear that what the person is stating isn't really a fact.

"The fact is that Paris is the capital of France."  A fact.  "The fact is that Heskey is a poor striker."  An opinion that people can discuss.

I covered that above mate. Usually, I'd have no problem with it. But its something I strongly disagree with and I'm sick of seeing it repeated here, The Mirror...etc when I think its nonsense so in this case, cut me some slack.

I also havent heard Hawkeye say it was his opinion and not claiming its a fact (how do I know he doesnt think it is), just you and Paulie say that's what he probably meant.

Anyway...

[ cartman ] Screw you guys... I'm watching the Crcket. [ /cartman ]

[adrenachrome]

When epistemological issues arise, I  like to quote that old sociopath and war criminal Donald Rumsfeld:

Now what is the message there? The message is that there are known "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.

[Risso]

*sigh*

The fact they're looking for £30m is evidence....

Says who etc.....

[Mazrim]

You apparently have a problem with "says who". I dont see why. Its nothing more than saying "show me where that's been said". Ive provided my side of the bargain. As I said, there's my "says who". Not my opinion, although I also gave that.

I don't have a problem with it beyond pointing out that it's a pretty pointless response given that we have hundreds of pages of conjecture and debate on this thread and nobody is any the wiser.

re the counter argument, the thing is, you say there's no evidence for it, but I've quoted the manager above suggesting there's a sell to buy policy, you've quoted Pelty saying there isn't.

Is there one? I don't think so, I actually agree with you, but the point i was making was that there is probably a quote out there from someone involved which could be used to present anything as compelling evidence, whereas we've no idea what the truth is.

Anywhere, here's the "evidence" (your word) you asked for in your edit.

I'm not saying this is true, or not, but it is every bit as admissable as evidence as your quotes, surely?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm

“We are going to be linked and very obviously, even without wanting to lose players of the calibre of Milner, we would want to try and recruit some players.

“But as the chairman mentioned way back, maybe it is a case of probably having to sell to buy and that is something you would have to be really constructive about. That is something I am building into at the moment.

O.K, one more and then its Cricket...

MON is agreeing with the context that Randy/ General etc used regarding "sell to buy" in that its related to wages and not transfer fees. So, I think, its actually further supporting my argument in that its all about wages only.

O.K, now I'm off. Have fun.

[Concrete John]

Dear god mazrim, you said you didn't want to indulge in semantics, but are now doing that to the nth degree.  If I see someone who says "the simple fact is" I don't immediately jump to on an online encyclopaedia to check it's veracity when it's clear that what the person is stating isn't really a fact.

"The fact is that Paris is the capital of France."  A fact.  "The fact is that Heskey is a poor striker."  An opinion that people can discuss.

I covered that above mate. Usually, I'd have no problem with it. But its something I strongly disagree with and I'm sick of seeing it repeated here, The Mirror...etc when I think its nonsense so in this case, cut me some slack.

I also havent heard Hawkeye say it was his opinion and not claiming its a fact (how do I know he doesnt think it is), just you and Paulie say that's what he probably meant.

Anyway...

[ cartman ] Screw you guys... I'm watching the Crcket. [ /cartman ]

You know, you could have saved all this hassle by just using the Chewbacca Defense in the first place?

"Look at the silly monkey"

[Olneythelonely]

The fact is, my penis is huge.

[PhilGibson]

The fact is, my penis is huge.

Is it this big?

[pauliewalnuts]

“We are going to be linked and very obviously, even without wanting to lose players of the calibre of Milner, we would want to try and recruit some players.

“But as the chairman mentioned way back, maybe it is a case of probably having to sell to buy and that is something you would have to be really constructive about. That is something I am building into at the moment.

O.K, one more and then its Cricket...

MON is agreeing with the context that Randy/ General etc used regarding "sell to buy" in that its related to wages and not transfer fees. So, I think, its actually further supporting my argument in that its all about wages only.

O.K, now I'm off. Have fun.

Says you, putting your slant on it, whereby others may put a different slant on it. Thereby making my entire point for me.

Have fun at the cricket. I shall be working. Or pretending to.