pete 2,499 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think you are right on this one Forlan after all we are still waiting for the SFA statement on the 5 titles document. Sometimes is less more. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 On the other hand, with a share issue in the offing it would be remiss of the club to just blithely ignore stories which upset the boat. I have no idea who is right, but I can see why the club would feel the need to respond. Regardless of an ammo it gives papers in a desperately quiet pre-international week I think it's the right response. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane 0 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The Pritchett article's not two months old. You're mistaking our silly way of writing dates over here. It was published on Monday. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 As a matter of principle we should have issued a statement mocking both Forbes and Pritchard for this line "Kudos to the player reps and union who used the club’s insolvency to their advantage but effectively rendered the club impudent as a result." They rendered us "impudent", really? Maybe Americans can't tell the difference between being cocky and not being able to use your cock. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The Pritchett article's not two months old. You're mistaking our silly way of writing dates over here. It was published on Monday. ........ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 ... that said, the data used for the article in general predates even these 2 months, so you wonder what it is all about. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUDE 0 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Fair enough to say something about the article if it wasn't correct in the eyes of the club, don't think it's got something to do with any raw nerves being hit. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Will they be so quick after the share issue? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The media really love writing 'liquidated with debts of up to £130 million' don't they? Anyway, I think the response is fair enough. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Surely it is absolutely appropriate to respond to an erroneous and misleading article which may affect future investment at our club, notwithstanding to re-assure the fans ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.