Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

M-K

Members
  • Posts

    1174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by M-K

  1. None of those pics are coming up for me. Bit of a shame if there are no planes to fly - find that hard to beleive though

    Here's the quote: "In terms of scale, this GTA experience shouldn't be much different than San Andreas". The only noticeable difference is that players won't be able to pilot airplanes. "There are no planes, because it's just a city," adds Houser. "Apart from the fact that [the vehicles] are similar. We want it to feel realistic and gritty. [bellic] is not going to be riding a unicycle or rollerblading. We are giving choice and variety that feels right for the character. We're not suddenly saying there are no motorbikes. we are keeping all of that stuff. It's the same range and diversity that we had, but to fit the character."

    Somebody typed the whole thing out here:

    GTA forums again

    Also: downloadable content is only for the 360 version!

  2. News of the World commented upon him at Tevez at the weekend about how Tevez tried to get involved and create things and referred back to Gary Lineker running six miles during matches - what they said about McCarthy was he was lucky if he ran 2 miles and his performance bordered on being absolutely lazy.

    Tevez has scored two goals all season and is nice and busy taking West Ham down.

    How about we combine all the topics slagging off the Rovers players we're supposed to be supporting and have a big poll to see exactly which one of them we hate / resent the most?

  3. I see that Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories is coming out on the PS2 - Do any of you know if you can swim in this or not?

    Yes but not for very far. You have a strength meter when in the water and it doesn't usually last long enough for you to find your way back to dry land if you fall off the side of a dock. It's better than the 'instant death' water in some of the other ones but not by much.

  4. Apart from the times we've been cheated out of major competitions.

    Spoken like a true England fan. The popular misconception that England is somehow destined to win every tournament, only to be cheated out of it by greasy old Carlos Kickaball and his diving chums, is one of the reasons you're not seeing the truth.

    I can't recall England ever being cheated out of a major competition. Argentina in 1986 were by far the better team, as they proved by going on to win it and reach the next final, too. Besides, if there was a lingering injustice to be balanced then we evened the score when Owen dived them out of 2002.

    Germany winning on penalties in 1990? Sweden not rolling over in 1992? Not being allowed to play in 1994? Carvalho sneakily putting his pods under Rooney's boot last time?

    When has England ever been cheated out of a tournament?

  5. what's that got to do with history, if we had the right manager and the correct system in place i think we might of won a major trophy by now.

    We have some world class players, it's just about getting the players in a suitable system, which will help bring the best out of them

    Because the same excuse has been used so many times now, it can't be true. England has long had a reasonable selection of players and many different managers have tried to turn them into winners, always without success. And I don't count Euro 96 as a high point, since England got to play every game at Wembley and still couldn't make the final. That's a big fat failure in any other nation's book.

    England brings in a charismatic ex-player for the Klinsmann / Rijkaard effect -- they get the Keegan effect instead.

    They bring in an expert manager with a huge list of honours, hoping for a Hiddink -- they wind up with Eriksson.

    Fact is, most supporters in England, or at least the ones working in the media, propagate the idea that England has every attribute required to win major football tournaments. The reality is that they have only done so once, with the key role being played by home advantage, and have never really threatened to repeat the feat.

  6. If he's been offered £40k a week at Rovers, he'd be on £2.08m p.a. On £50k a week at West Ham, he'll get £2.6m p.a. With that much money coming in each and every week, is it really worth sacrificing your ambition for a little bit more?

    It isn't just a little bit more. If those figures are correct (and I've seen the Wham offer quoted as a lot higher) then a four-year contract at Rovers is worth £8.3m whereas a four-year deal with West Ham gets him £10.4m.

    More than two million quid extra! Plus a signing-on fee, I'd imagine.

    Two million pounds in my pocket... heck, I'd probably leave Rovers for that and I've been a supporter for 30 years.

  7. I guess if Neill is really after money, I don't see why he doesn't follow Beckham and play in the US.

    One star player per team, isn't it? Although they said on Sky Sports that LA were offering trials to anyone who wants to turn up, so maybe Lucas could nip over there for the weekend and show them what a £70k per week player really looks like.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.