collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Follow us on...

Author Topic: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI  (Read 229903 times)

Offline pauliewalnuts

  • Member
  • Posts: 74702
  • GM : 28.08.2025
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #810 on: November 24, 2010, 10:21:26 PM »
Mr. Krulak, Question - though it has possibly been asked before.

Who approved the signing of Stephen Ireland? MON may have supported the Milner/Ireland deal but it was completed after he left. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but buying players without having a manager on board is stupid in the extreme.

Its General not MR

It has been explained before as well

The US Army doesnt have any authority over me anyway. Mr Krulak is a board member who gives of his time to answer fans on a forum fair enough. I applaud him for that but I'm not going to genuflect before a general in the US army at the same time.


You could at least make the effort not to appear churlish, puerile and disrespectful, which is the least we expect on this site, and is what pretty much every single person on here manages.

Nobody is asking you to genuflect.

Online dave.woodhall

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63404
  • Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #811 on: November 25, 2010, 12:02:22 AM »
Mr. Krulak, Question - though it has possibly been asked before.

Who approved the signing of Stephen Ireland? MON may have supported the Milner/Ireland deal but it was completed after he left. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but buying players without having a manager on board is stupid in the extreme.

Its General not MR

It has been explained before as well

The US Army doesnt have any authority over me anyway. Mr Krulak is a board member who gives of his time to answer fans on a forum fair enough. I applaud him for that but I'm not going to genuflect before a general in the US army at the same time.


If you're going to insult someone, at least get your facts right. It's Marines, not army.

Offline brontebilly

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11266
  • GM : 23.06.2026
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #812 on: November 25, 2010, 04:42:13 AM »
Mr. Krulak, Question - though it has possibly been asked before.

Who approved the signing of Stephen Ireland? MON may have supported the Milner/Ireland deal but it was completed after he left. Hindsight is a wonderful
thing but buying players without having a manager on board is stupid in the extreme.

Its General not MR

It has been explained before as well

The US Army doesnt have any authority over me anyway. Mr Krulak is a board member who gives of his time to answer fans on a forum fair enough. I applaud him for that but I'm not going to genuflect before a general in the US army at the same time.


If you're going to insult someone, at least get your facts right. It's Marines, not army.

I'm not insulting anyone you clown but your PC sensibilities. Whatever happened to the right to an opinion. It is a side issue but I for one am not overly impressed by a career in a force that had caused global instability for many years. Even taking politics out of it do you not think as fans we should question our boards decisions or even motives. If Randy Lerner pulled out in the morning Villa would be in a Pompey situation. Why was Houllier not signed up till after the transfer window closed for example? I asked a question about a serious board fuck up. The board as is their right do not have to answer it but signing Ireland will cost the club 3m minimum when we flog him.

As with the rest of you I'm happy by and large with Lerner to date but his experiences with the Cleveland Browns and those of owners elsewhere mean that we as supporters should always be cautious and questioning. How exposed is Mr Lerner to the huge debt crisis in Europe for example. Some of you guys seem overjoyed to have your stomach tickled by board members. A bit of debate about the future of the club wouldn't go astray at times.




Offline pelty

  • Member
  • Posts: 1184
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #813 on: November 25, 2010, 06:55:28 AM »
brontebilly,

"It is a side issue but I for one am not overly impressed by a career in a force that had caused global instability for many years."

It is quite possible that this is the most asinine statement that I have seen on this forum, and I have seen some doozies.

How many times must the Ireland deal be explained to you? It is not that difficult. MON and MCFC had a deal signed and sealed. It was done. Finished. Finito. MON, of course, was speaking for more than himself but, in fact, was speaking for AVFC. When MON left, this did not mean that the deal BETWEEN AVFC AND MCFC was null and void. A deal is a deal. Now, MCFC and Ireland had to hammer out contract/pay issues, but that had nothing to do with the deal in place. The deal had already been finalized and there was no way out of it. Is this so difficult to understand?

Offline KevinGage

  • Member
  • Posts: 14125
  • Location: Singing from under the floorboards
  • GM : 20.09.20
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #814 on: November 25, 2010, 07:01:50 AM »
Mr. Krulak, Question - though it has possibly been asked before.

Who approved the signing of Stephen Ireland? MON may have supported the Milner/Ireland deal but it was completed after he left. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but buying players without having a manager on board is stupid in the extreme.

Its General not MR

It has been explained before as well

The US Army doesnt have any authority over me anyway. Mr Krulak is a board member who gives of his time to answer fans on a forum fair enough. I applaud him for that but I'm not going to genuflect before a general in the US army at the same time.


You might not agree with the actions of the US Army, US foreign policy or any other bobbins. But the guy has earned the title.

Show him the respect he deserves.


Offline brontebilly

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11266
  • GM : 23.06.2026
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #815 on: November 25, 2010, 07:14:45 AM »

Asinine ..... The adjective wet dream police are sure out in force

Are you suggesting Milner played illegally against West Ham so?




brontebilly,

"It is a side issue but I for one am not overly impressed by a career in a force that had caused global instability for many years."

It is quite possible that this is the most asinine statement that I have seen on this forum, and I have seen some doozies.

How many times must the Ireland deal be explained to you? It is not that difficult. MON and MCFC had a deal signed and sealed. It was done. Finished. Finito. MON, of course, was speaking for more than himself but, in fact, was speaking for AVFC. When MON left, this did not mean that the deal BETWEEN AVFC AND MCFC was null and void. A deal is a deal. Now, MCFC and Ireland had to hammer out contract/pay issues, but that had nothing to do with the deal in place. The deal had already been finalized and there was no way out of it. Is this so difficult to understand?

Offline KevinGage

  • Member
  • Posts: 14125
  • Location: Singing from under the floorboards
  • GM : 20.09.20
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #816 on: November 25, 2010, 07:39:04 AM »
As we still held the players registration I'd doubt that it would be illegal to play him.

Offline Rip Van We Go Again

  • Member
  • Posts: 26039
  • Location: Up and down, i'm up the wall, i'm up the bloody tree
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #817 on: November 25, 2010, 10:26:20 AM »
. Some of you guys seem overjoyed to have your stomach tickled by board members. A bit of debate about the future of the club wouldn't go astray at times.
There is plenty of debate on this thread and elsewhere, so I don't understand your point.
All that was asked is that you treat the General with a bit of respect, not pledge your allegiance to the American flag.

Offline Risso

  • Member
  • Posts: 89939
  • Location: Leics
  • GM : 04.03.2025
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #818 on: November 25, 2010, 11:15:07 AM »
I don't personally hold with religion, but if I was writing to a member of the clergy I'd still use his correct title.  Brontebilly, you're far more likely to get reasoned responses to your questions if you demonstrate a small amount of respect and maturity.

Offline ckrulak

  • Member
  • Posts: 1301
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #819 on: November 25, 2010, 03:21:54 PM »
General Krulak here:

1.  brontebilly:  All I have ever asked is that Fans treat each other and those on this thread with respect and with dignity.  "General or Mr." is not something that I get exercised about but...to denigrate service...whether in uniform as a US Marine or any other Nation's military...seems to go a step too far.  Like the British soldiers fighting and sacrificing in Afghanistan, they are doing what their Nation asked them to do...you may not agree with the policy or for US policy...but don't denigrate the service.  As for your question, Pelty pretty much hit the nail on the head which is the same answer (basically) that I provided on more that 3 occasions.  The deal was completed while MON was the Manager...simple as that.  Signed and sealed. 

Offline Toronto Villa

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58634
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Toronto, Canada
  • GM : 23.07.2026
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #820 on: November 25, 2010, 03:27:54 PM »
General Krulak here:

1.  brontebilly:  All I have ever asked is that Fans treat each other and those on this thread with respect and with dignity.  "General or Mr." is not something that I get exercised about but...to denigrate service...whether in uniform as a US Marine or any other Nation's military...seems to go a step too far.  Like the British soldiers fighting and sacrificing in Afghanistan, they are doing what their Nation asked them to do...you may not agree with the policy or for US policy...but don't denigrate the service.  As for your question, Pelty pretty much hit the nail on the head which is the same answer (basically) that I provided on more that 3 occasions.  The deal was completed while MON was the Manager...simple as that.  Signed and sealed. 

here here

We all have our opinions on the decisions made by governments across the world, but the brave men and women of all armed forces sacrifice themselves so the rest of us can live better lives. That should never be forgotten and we should respect them for that if nothing else.

Offline BoredNow

  • Member
  • Posts: 1474
  • Location: Nuneaton
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #821 on: November 25, 2010, 03:59:48 PM »
General, I'm hoping third time's a charm for this question. Here it is again, from Novermber 13...

I was really disappointed on Wednesday to discover the Villa Vitality food outlet in the lower Doug Ellis has been closed and replaced by the usual burgers and chips.

It took up just one half of a kiosk (the real coffee place is in the other half, I hope that's not for the chop too).

Elsewhere there are three full kiosks selling all the usual football stadium fare. Surely the club makes enough profit from those outlets to give over one eighth of its catering floor space to offer other options.

It's been great having the choice, especially for night games or matches like today when it's convenient to grab something to eat at the stadium. Now the club is missing out on my cash.

Can you explain the decision please?

Offline kipeye

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4084
  • Age: 69
  • Location: Wirral
  • GM : PCM
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #822 on: November 25, 2010, 05:20:40 PM »
While I don't have a problem with referring to CK as General-I would never call someone 'My Lord' or 'Your Majesty' as I  could not be persuaded to either. I would also support anyone's right to state they hold no regard for someone who has served his country in military service. They do not ask for our approval as individuals and cannot expect it automatically.

Offline DeKuip

  • Member
  • Posts: 2252
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #823 on: November 25, 2010, 06:33:27 PM »
While I don't have a problem with referring to CK as General-I would never call someone 'My Lord' or 'Your Majesty' as I  could not be persuaded to either. I would also support anyone's right to state they hold no regard for someone who has served his country in military service. They do not ask for our approval as individuals and cannot expect it automatically.

What - not even Paul McGrath?

Offline kipeye

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4084
  • Age: 69
  • Location: Wirral
  • GM : PCM
Re: The General C. Krulak Thread XVI
« Reply #824 on: November 25, 2010, 07:52:07 PM »
There are always exceptions DeK.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal