Some more from me ...

[tommyt]

. The Modric deal was kept secret from everyone else as well which leads us to assume it was either kept very under the radar (and our source explicitly told not to mention it?) or it developed quickly.

Which suggests, in my opinion, that the club are quite happy to let snippets out on occasion if it won't hamper the deal???


There are obviously people who are privy to such information, and to have our own such person is good enough for me.

I have to agree with Dougal, i'm quite excited by this and think others should just go along for the ride whether they believe the info or not.

 

[Flatters]

This thread is very obviously about The Goat... It's like going into the "Lost Series 4" thread (for example) and posting "I think Lost is a crock of shite"... what's the point, the thread is obviously for talking about the show, if you don't like the show, don't post...

Same with ITK threads, if you don't like ITK, don't post... how hard is it NOT to write something?!

No, it's not. It's like pointing out something that happened in Lost and saying that particular thing isn't meaningful or logical.

As others have said, what's the point in a forum if you can't voice your opinion, whether it be positive or negative.

 

[hellava_tough]

Anyone care to post the story of the man who missed the Waddler?

Chris

What are you talking about?

:shrug:

 

[Dougal]

Blowing this out of proportion you can perfectly, within your rights to free speech, claim that Spurs didn't draw 1-1 with Bolton on Saturday. More may join you in the claim, having not been there or seen a paper (having no proof available). But when others here can vouch that it was indeed 1-1 then we'd be better off talking about the game rather than debating whether it actually happened. If you continued to say it didn't happen then your post would be pointless and the mods may have to clean up the thread in order to keep it on topic. You are still entitled to free speech but SC is still entitled to run the website in a way that is most beneficial to Spurs fans.

 

[Flatters]

Blowing this out of proportion you can perfectly, within your rights to free speech, claim that Spurs didn't draw 1-1 with Bolton on Saturday. More may join you in the claim, having not been there or seen a paper (having no proof available). But when others here can vouch that it was indeed 1-1 then we'd be better off talking about the game rather than debating whether it actually happened. If you continued to say it didn't happen then your post would be pointless and the mods may have to clean up the thread in order to keep it on topic. You are still entitled to free speech but SC is still entitled to run the website in a way that is most beneficial to Spurs fans.

Rambling ain't getting you out of this one, Doogz. :lol:

 

[ever]

Chris

What are you talking about?

:shrug:

we used to have a great member called imissthewaddler, anyway he managed to get himself some good contacts at the club and released as much as he could to us on here, unfortuantly some idiots decided that he was making it up for the attention and called him a bullshitter, anyway he no longer posts here and the site is a worse off place because of it, we also had another member whos name i can not recall (sorry if you are reading this) but the same thing happened to him.

 

[Dougal]

Rambling ain't getting you out of this one, Doogz. :lol:

Actually, going for a long walk seems a very good idea right now

 

[Chris12345]

No, it's not. It's like pointing out something that happened in Lost and saying that particular thing isn't meaningful or logical.

As others have said, what's the point in a forum if you can't voice your opinion, whether it be positive or negative.

No it's not... if you said:

"Hmm, 4 or 5 players, that doesn't seem logical, I can only think of a couple that aren't good enough..."

that would be saying something isn't logical...

saying

"What a load of bollocks, this information's shite without names"

isn't saying something's not logical or meaningful, it's a pointless wind-up...


O, and there used to be an ITK who posted info on here called "IMissTheWaddler", who left the site because people kept on insulting him for passing information on in good faith...

 

[Flatters]

Can I just make it clear that I never said the ITK was made up or anything like that, just that I thought it was so vague that it was pretty pointless without naming the players.

 

[Flatters]

No it's not... if you said:

"Hmm, 4 or 5 players, that doesn't seem logical, I can only think of a couple that aren't good enough..."

that would be saying something isn't logical...

saying

"What a load of bollocks, this information's shite without names"

isn't saying something's not logical or meaningful, it's a pointless wind-up...


O, and there used to be an ITK who posted info on here called "IMissTheWaddler", who left the site because people kept on insulting him for passing information on in good faith...

I wasn't nearly as aggressive as that. I wasn't even aggressive at all. I was just stating my point.

 

[Legend10]

Blimey! I went away from my desk and when I got back there's been a posting storm!!

Okay, here's basically what I think thus far:

1) In reply to Dougal (I know you weren't being aggressive ), I'd do exactly what this site have done, but I'd allow a free and open discussion about all aspects of the source/The Goat/the ITK

2) I think The Goat is a fun and interesting way to keep members entertained and the gossip flowing in the close-season

3) I think the Mods on this site have integrity and are a pleasant bunch

4) I don't particularly agree with most of what L10 has written

5) I think that everything on this site, which has been posted into the public domain, should be up for discussion/criticism. Internet forums were obstensibly designed to promote freedom of speech, ideas and arguments. To stunt this freedom would be a travisty

6) Flatters has said he's already been censored. If true, I don't think this is fair, and is against the whole spirit of an open, public, forum.

that's fair enough and I respect your opinion on that point and I find it refreshing that you are an individual who has his own mind. Also you've made your points in a way that I believe to be fair and concise rather than appearing to be dictatorial or a spoilt little brat like some do.

I have a very close mate who works with the 1st team at another London based Prem club, last summer he told me on 3 occasions in confidence of imminent signings being made by that club (primarily because he works with the manager on a day to day basis and is invoved in preliminary medicals) and all were signed. that is what i call somebody who is ITK, yet he never says to me over a pint that the club says they need a midfield enforcer or certain players can't be motivated or stuff like somebody doesn't like the city, he would just laugh at that. That isn't ITK its pretty worthless gossip that once in a blue moon will be correct, throw enough shit at the wall and eventually a piece of it will stick.

If the Goat wants some credibility then tell us something of substance, tell us something that somebody with real connections would know.

Tell us what direction we are heading down with the ground and why and what the capacity is going to be etc?

tell us which of the many keepers we are linked with that we are most likely to sign and why?

I'm sure that there is plenty of information not known by people on this board that somebody with real close connections would know, tell us one, but to say we need a leader and it's good to know that the club are thinking the same as us is quite frankly about as weak as weak can be.

 

[Chris12345]

Can I just make it clear that I never said the ITK was made up or anything like that, just that I thought it was so vague that it was pretty pointless without naming the players.

What are you expecting? "Dawson to move to Villa in 49 and a half hours, for £3.4m, he will sign the contract in red biro, while wearing a green stripey shirt." :shrug:

Out of interest, what do you hope to achieve by saying the info is "pointless without names"?

 

[Booney]

I welcome the Goat and any ITK snippets but any censorship (barring those comments which are grossly offensive or antagonistic) is wrong in my opinion. People should be entitled to express opinons no matter how unpopular - it's what tends to provoke a good discussion or debate which is the reason why most people join the site in the first place. If people are really having posts deleted because of questioning ITKs then this is a bit of a worrying development. If you consider them ungrateful wretches then by all means shoot them down but don't just delete it. People seem to be letting it all get a bit to their heads.

 

[Dougal]

I've said my bit. The source is good, the info isn't that exciting at the moment. If people wish to carry on questioning the source because of the info then work away until your heart is content, whatever makes your day tick along.

For those who welcome The Goat, I'm sure he won't disappoint in the long run :up:

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

Dawson to move to Villa in 49 and a half hours, for £3.4m, he will sign the contract in red biro, while wearing a green stripey shirt.

Clearly that is wrong. I have it on good authority he will actually be wearing a blue stripey shirt.

 

[Rob]

The compromise we've been thinking about is making the transfer/ITK forum permission based and so anyone who can't help themselves from being rude just won't have permission to read the forum and the "worthless gossip" inside and they won't get banned for it.

I'm not sure if that works but if people don't have the willpower to ignore threads and not comment I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Thoughts?

 

[hellava_tough]

The compromise we've been thinking about is making the transfer/ITK forum permission based and so anyone who can't help themselves from being rude just won't have permission to read the forum and the "worthless gossip" inside and they won't get banned for it.

I'm not sure if that works but if people don't have the willpower to ignore threads and not comment I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Thoughts?

It's still a form of censorship, though, isn't it Rob?

 

[Chris12345]

Can't we just shoot all non-believers? :shrug:


It may well work, but personally, I think that's a bad road to go down... it's hard to draw lines...

 

[Flatters]

The compromise we've been thinking about is making the transfer/ITK forum permission based and so anyone who can't help themselves from being rude just won't have permission to read the forum and the "worthless gossip" inside and they won't get banned for it.

I'm not sure if that works but if people don't have the willpower to ignore threads and not comment I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Thoughts?

I think you should be able to comment on it whatever your opinion is, you just can't say something as simple as "it's bollocks". I don't see a problem with saying that you think something is too far-fetched or nonsensical, and perhaps explaining why you think that.

 

[Dougal]

I think you should be able to comment on it whatever your opinion is, you just can't say something as simple as "it's bollocks". I don't see a problem with saying that you think something is too far-fetched or nonsensical, and perhaps explaining why you think that.

But when the issue has been explained but not taken on board where do you go from there? A thread that is talking about not very much. Spam if you like.

Wait, what's my problem with this? :lol:

We are getting nowhere so appropriate action must be taken.