Look back at what I've highlighted in bold .... .... no matter how much you stamp your feet and squirm, you've totally contradicted yourself. You tried to get one over on me and now you've made a fool of yourself accuse me of doing just that. You've actually verified the main accusation people make about you ... .... you think that if you couch everything in endless waffle you can say whatever makes you look right. You've completely blown it tonight
Coton and McClaren at Old Trafford tonight. Why is Coton there and why is Tufty with him .... ... surely there can't be anything in the rumours. Could we be arranging the loan of a United youngster ....
We've been told, half a dozen times, to forget FPP yet they're still here ... ... having invested more money, into the club, than anyone else!
What are you doing man, this embarrassing. I didn't contradict myself at all, read that quote I just showed you and tell me where I mentioned a majority stake to the lad who asked? Or anything that contradicts what I said to you? I wasn't trying to get one over on you either you paranoid nutter (SAFETY SMILEY BECAUSE YOU'RE GENUINELY WEIRD: ), I was simply stating what Donald said, that they weren't interested in a majority stake right now but intended to potentially convert their current loan to a minority stake at some point, and could come in again after that and add to their equity, even if it's still a minority in the Championship. As I've said for some time, that doesn't preclude them being potentially interested one day in a majority stake if the timing and progress is right and we're say, in the Premier League. For some reason you can't grasp that last part. That is not hard to understand, so just for the record no matter what you try to do with pathetic out of context selective quoting of me (that doesn't even say what you think it says, because you seemingly haven't read it through?), you can just read that last paragraph and give your head a wobble, because it's all there above. The end. Case closed Poirot.
I I dont believe the choice was as stark as you infer. But it's all moot. He's here, he's stuffed up, he has to go ( apologies Jim Reeves fans)
You're just Donald-lite, you forget what you've said and contradict yourself. Claiming 'i knew what you meant' doesn't wash, you always use that shyte excuse when you've messed up. Over the course of yesterday's posts you ridiculed me for suggesting FPP would ever want a majority shareholding then said exactly that yourself. No matter how much you get out your waffle machine everyone can see what you've done.
What part of this are you not getting? That is my position, that they want a minority stake now (not a majority) and that one day they may choose to up their stake incrementally. Are you dense? The quote you pulled up this time is not the quote you pulled up before, which is why I said that THAT SPECIFIC POST didn't mention a majority at all, which it didn't. So then you dig up another post that says exactly what I believe, and tell me that somehow it contradicts me, despite it saying exactly what I've said I believe... I mean you're just trying to paint this as something it's not, and I don't know why. I've even explained it directly to you a few days ago... Oh, and I actually agreed with you quite a bit when you were desperately trying to poke and prod me for something to have a go with. But in case you accuse me of contradicting myself, this is what I said in a post where I quoted you and sheep farmer a few days ago. Hardly me suggesting they'll never ever be majority owners. You can't seem to tell the difference between that and me saying 'they don't want a majority stake' in the context of you talking about an immediate takeover. You just can't get past blind hatred of me, in fact if you look, I actually agreed with a lot of what you said. So you can keep this going, and you can keep on with your bullet pointed misleading ****e, and I will keep responding in good faith in the hope that one day you'll actually get over whatever it is that makes you so wound up about me posting on your forum.
And I do apologise to everyone that I have to clutter up the threads, but the last few days have been smug trying desperately to attack me for no apparent reason. I'm not sure what I've done to upset him except disagree with him, but I'll try to keep it to a minimum and only respond when he outright misleads people like he did there.
To be honest mate it's getting absolutely tedious as it's taking over almost all the threads with tit for tat. There's people I don't like or get on with on here but i just tend not to bother reading or replying to their posts. Why don't you both just ignore each other?
I'd like to, but he misrepresents everything I say pal. If people asked him to stop doing this (look back through his recent posts to me and I've bitten my tongue about stuff like being called a coward for example) then maybe it would stop it, but while everyone focuses on admonishing me, he will continue.
Hmm perhaps we need a smug and kitten free zone for a few days.. When my grandchildren get into a squabble I put them into separate rooms to play alone for a while...
I'll be honest - I simply can't be arsed to read through all of the ****e that has been posted arguing with one another. It's ruining threads so what is the point? It's an internet forum - I've had disagreements with a number of people but never to the extent of you two. Get a room! You need to pack it in before it seriously damages the forum traffic as people will simply get sick of it. If it starts making people leave then we'll have to take action and that means me having to read through all of the posts to see who is right and who is wrong. If I have to take that much time out of my family time for this forum I'll be extremely unhappy
I wouldn't disagree, but at some point people have to be big enough (as you have here) to accept that this is a two way street. It's him doing the majority of the insulting posts, and me responding. If he stopped the former, the latter wouldn't exist.
"In the context of you talking about an immediate takeover." Where did I do that? You're actually wrong which is what destroys your argument and did all along. You started with the insults and are playing the victim as your kind always do. That's all I have to say.