Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Why is it not Paul Walsh's fault?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I can picture El Tel now, his big bodyguards holding Gazza down, pouring gallon after gallon of booze down his throat.

Holding Gazza and his family at gunpoint until he has another drink.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Why is it not Paul Walsh's fault?
.......
Because it was terry venables fault

==========================

Does that mean that you are now in agreement that he needed to calm down ? Because in leaping to venebles' defence, up til now you have spent the thread arguing how you that it was noone'e fault because there was nothing wrong. You have regailed us with your recollections as an 11 year old boy that gazza always played games like and needed to play like that to be at his best, and that his tackles etc in that game were fine. You have insisted on maintaining this position in spite of evidence from spurs' captain on the day and from the referee on the day that you were wrong, and have tried to refute this information by stating that the referee was lying and that mabuutt saying that gazza needed someone to calm him down doesnt mean that gazza needed someone to calm him down.

From the explanation gazza imself gave in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, yes it does seem as if Paul Walsh might be partly responsible. I would not be dissuaded from my view though that Venebles should take some of the blame (and in my view a significant proportion of the blame), because he was the manager in charge on the day.

Coming back to my original comment, which you took issue with, venables should have calmed gazza down (as my original comment that you argued with), and should not have let him go out in that state of mind where he was making flying knee high tackles and sticking his studs into a player's chest. I have seen nothing on this thread to make me even consider changing my mind on that, and that includes your numerous comments about jan vertonghen.

With regards to man united, yes of course i knew he nearly went there, which is why I included the comment about fergie in the my original comment that you argued with. At a guess I would say you have only found out about this since reading my comment.

With regards to your saracastic comments about the gasgoine transfer jeoporsidsing tottenham's solvency, I suggest you read something about the club in 1990/1991. A good starting point is the wikipedia guide to the history of tottenham hotspur football club (see the 1990s section ) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.#1990s

it's amazing really that this 'discussion' has gone on as long as it has when the points which are relevant are so simple.

the reason it has gone on so long is the numerous red herrings you have thrown in in your anxiety to detract from having lost the argument which you started.

In objecting to my suggestion that venables was partly to blame and should not have let gazza go out in that state of mind, you have really made 2 points :

1. there was nothing wrong with is tackles, including the one which wrecked his career.

2. his state of mind was fine, he always went out like that because it was a part of his game, and he didnt need calming down.

it's hard to know which of these arguments is the more ridiculous tbh, but both have been shown to be incorrect.

with regards to your first argument, i have shown you a clip of the ref on the day saying that he considered the 2nd tackle to be a red card offence, but in the heat of the moment he decided not to give a red card because he knew gazza had to go off injured anyway. your response to this was that the referr was lieing and/or didnt know what he was talking about.

with regards to your second argument, i have shown you a clip of gascoigne explaining how he had had to have an injection to calm him down in the lead up to the game, and I shown you a clip of gary mabbutt saying that someone needed to have a word with gazza to calm him down. your response to this was to maintain that he didnt need calming down, and that i had wrongly predicted that jan vertonghen wouldnt be a sucess for us.

Quite ironic really that you have said that it's me who doesnt know what im talking about, when what you have actuallyshown is :

1. it's you who doesnt know what you are talking about on these matters

2. you wont admit when you are wrong, but will try to worm your way out of it by making irrelevant attempts to discredit the person who has taught you about the things you have tried to comment on.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

total fakin bulllshiiit. your comments on this thread are complete and utter shiiiit.

you havent got a clue about spurs you mug.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I was going to cut and paste the part of your response that had something to do with the matter we've been discussing, but from what i can see none of it has anything to do with the issues weve been discussing, so i will just do another recap for you :
:

- you disputed my claim that gascoigne was in a poor state of mind for that game and needed to be calmed down.

- you suggested that there was nothing wrong with the tackle when he kicked another player in the chest, and the tackle where he lunged at a player's knee thus incurring a career ruining injury

- you ignored the interview with gasgoine in which he said his head was not right for the game and had had an injection the week before the game to calm him down

- you ignored the interview with gary mabbutt in which he said gascoigne needed someone to have a word with him to calm him down

- you responded to the interview in which the referee said the second tackle was a red card offence, by saying the referee was lieing

-on realising you were talking out of your backside, you started talking about my comments earlier in the season about vertongehn

-in support of the original point i made which you took issue with, i have presented interviews with gascoigne, the referee and the spurs captain to show that i was right in the first place.

- to try to show that you are right, you said you were wearing a new replica kit on the day of the game, and that i predicted that vertonghen wouldnt be a success with spurs.


what else do you think is needed to show that you have been talking out of your asss ?

JPB seems to be basing his 'win' on the 'fact' that one tackle ruined his career.

Could have sworn he went on to have a successful career after it

And saying he 'would' have had a better career without that tackle is just conjecture.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I am now going to go through this from the start and show how clueless you are.
=======================

youve been trying to do that for the whole thread but all you have managed to do so far is prove that you havent got a clue what you are talking about and that you will just sling abuse to try to hide the fact you were wrong.

this argument is about whether gascoigne needed calming down for that game, and you have shown that your view on that is at odds with all the evidence.

you thought that gazza always went round kicking players in the chest and lunging at their knees ? you didnt even know that gazza was sold to stop the club going bust ?

just how clueless are you ?

by the way dot - i saw your comment about how annoyed you are to have missed the chance to have an argument with me. now's the perfect chance ! perhaps you can start off by explaining your accusation that i have made a string of hilarious contradictions about the subject matter of this argument ?

I would suggest that the best way to progress this discussion is for a response to be provided to each of the following statement :


1. you disputed my claim that gascoigne was in a poor state of mind for that game and needed to be calmed down.

2. you suggested that there was nothing wrong with the tackle when he kicked another player in the chest, and the tackle where he lunged at a player's knee thus incurring a career ruining injury

3. you ignored the interview with gasgoine in which he said his head was not right for the game and had had an injection the week before the game to calm him down

4. you ignored the interview with gary mabbutt in which he said gascoigne needed someone to have a word with him to calm him down

5. you responded to the interview in which the referee said the second tackle was a red card offence, by saying the referee was lieing

6. on realising you were talking out of your backside, you started talking about my comments earlier in the season about vertongehn

7. in support of the original point i made which you took issue with, i have presented interviews with gascoigne, the referee and the spurs captain to show that i was right in the first place.

8. to try to show that you are right, you said you were wearing a new replica kit on the day of the game, and that i predicted that vertonghen wouldnt be a success with spurs.


That should give you a great chance to 'rip me apart'

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

how about you just stick to the subject matter of the discussion, instead of constantly posting irrelevant and fatous rubbish ? you might notice that my posts constantly refer back to the points which have been made on the subject matter of the dispute, whereas you are just spouting off-topic flannel.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

i bet he mentions that it wasnt a 2 footed tackle

Comment deleted by Site Moderator