Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who said it had to be. He clearly has some kind of source.
I think for someone to give a post insinuating this man-child to know useful information, I'd expect there to be some actual development or breaking info.

Not reporting that Ratcliffe is coming to OT, which probably the tea lady knew anyway.
 
I think for someone to give a post insinuating this man-child to know useful information, I'd expect there to be some actual development or breaking info.

Not reporting that Ratcliffe is coming to OT, which probably the tea lady knew anyway.
Credit where it’s due. He said Ratcliffe would be in Manchester. Also said that Brailsford would be at the villa game. Both before anyone else did.

Spin that how you like.
 
Credit where it’s due. He said Ratcliffe would be in Manchester. Also said that Brailsford would be at the villa game. Both before anyone else did.

Spin that how you like.
Brailsford was expected to be at the Villa game. Ratcliff will be at the next home game at OT. Am I in the know? Is that even relevant useful information? No.
 
No, I'm still finding it funny how gullable you are about him.


Interesting..
How is it gullible if he says two specific things that will happen before anyone else and they do happen?

You just don’t like the guy and refuse to accept he has some kind of source giving him information no matter how big or small it is.
 
How is it gullible if he says two specific things that will happen before anyone else and they do happen?

You just don’t like the guy and refuse to accept he has some kind of source giving him information no matter how big or small it is.
He is not the first person to know that Ratcliff was coming to Old Trafford, you know that right? Many journalists are likely already aware and one had already reported it in Wheeler.

In any case, him getting an insignificant nugget correct doesn't mean he knows anything remotely substantial to be given an iota of respect. It's gullable because you have fallen into constant briefs of intricate information which is rehashed public information and it's been evidenced to you in the past.
 
He is not the first person to know that Ratcliff was coming to Old Trafford, you know that right? Many journalists are likely already aware and one had already reported it in Wheeler.

In any case, him getting an insignificant nugget correct doesn't mean he knows anything remotely substantial to be given an iota of respect. It's gullable because you have fallen into constant briefs of intricate information which is rehashed public information and it's been evidenced to you in the past.
He said it yesterday, Wheeler nearly 12 hours later.

Okay, you're in denial. Gotcha.
 
Every time I pop in here it's like that monkey fight simpsons meme
 
Who else reported he was coming specifically today? Nobody.
So it must have been a secret? Or more likely, it wasn't such a big piece of development for it to be granted as a soundbite?

Lets assume that he did know that Ratcliffe was due to come through his own source. What suggests that source knows anything more than that?

My point being, knowing OT is getting a visitor is not exactly a smoking gun in evidencing a "reporter" has sources that can provide intricate and detailed information about the thought process and legalities of club management and boardroom.
 
So it must have been a secret? Or more likely, it wasn't such a big piece of development for it to be granted as a soundbite?

Lets assume that he did know that Ratcliffe was due to come through his own source. What suggests that source knows anything more than that?

My point being, knowing OT is getting a visitor is not exactly a smoking gun in evidencing a "reporter" has sources that can provide intricate and detailed information about the thought process and legalities of club management and boardroom.

You tell him! Don't take that shit.
 
So it must have been a secret? Or more likely, it wasn't such a big piece of development for it to be granted as a soundbite?

Lets assume that he did know that Ratcliffe was due to come through his own source. What suggests that source knows anything more than that?

My point being, knowing OT is getting a visitor is not exactly a smoking gun in evidencing a "reporter" has sources that can provide intricate and detailed information about the thought process and legalities of club management and boardroom.
Where have I suggested otherwise? You are suggesting a source is giving him information but also that he doesn't know anything. Can't be both can it make your mind up.

You went from claiming he knows nothing, to the validity of the information, now to whether you find the information informative or relevant. Constantly moving the goalposts man. :lol:
Give it a rest.
 
Where have I suggested otherwise? You are suggesting a source is giving him information but also that he doesn't know anything. Can't be both can it make your mind up.

You went from claiming he knows nothing, to the validity of the information, now to whether you find the information informative or relevant. Constantly moving the goalposts man. :lol:
Give it a rest.

Ooooh damnn
 
See this is what happens when we don't have money and aren't linked to any players.
 
Where have I suggested otherwise? You are suggesting a source is giving him information but also that he doesn't know anything. Can't be both can it make your mind up.

You went from claiming he knows nothing, to the validity of the information, now to whether you find the information informative or relevant. Constantly moving the goalposts man. :lol:
Give it a rest.
I just said he knows feck all, and knowing something the tea lady would doesn't change that, regardless of whether he reported it 12 hours before.

Anyaya we can move on, my stance is consistent. Only gullable folk would believe a man child pretending to know useful information.
 
I just said he knows feck all, and knowing something the tea lady would doesn't change that, regardless of whether he reported it 12 hours before.

Anyaya we can move on, my stance is consistent. Only gullable folk would believe a man child pretending to know useful information.
That's something you keep imagining mate.

Also it's spelt gullible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.