craig 5,199 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 well you are now as well, green clearly stated yesterday, with quotes, he has not spoken to the player or his agents. He might not have. He might leave contract details to Stockbridge, the FD 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 He might not have. He might leave contract details to Stockbridge, the FD lol yeah, he might but my understanding is he has been and will be involved in transfer negotiations. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 its a fact allan. like it or not. you cant deny it. No, it isnt a fact. You suggesting it as such is only because it is what you want to believe. It is not too hard to accept that Green might not have actually spoken to either Bell OR his agents. As I said, it could just as easily have been Stockbridge who does the financial side of things at Ibrox. Could also have been Ahmad who seems heavily involved. Does NOT need to have been Green, despite you suggesting it does. I am not saying t he above is what HAS taken place but it is certainly plausible. Just as plausible as you suggesting that someone is lying. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) i am afraid you are wrong on this one mate. green has to be heavily involved in every aspect of transfers as club ceo. He might be heavily involved.... but look again at what Green said... did he not say he hasnt MET the player or agent ? Things cant be done via email, conference call, fax, etc these days ? EDIT : I see, kuz, you say he hasnt SPOKE to the lad, not MET. Apologies. Regardless, these deals can still be done without physically speaking to him, not by Green anyway. Doesnt need to have been Green Edited February 22, 2013 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 you are taking us off on a tangent mate, this was not the original conversation. it was about someone lying which you cannot deny, no shame in being wrong mate. we all get it wrong sometimes. next time its maybe better not to jump in both feet first though eh Given that it is unproven as to whether ANYONE is lying you might want to practice what you preach with this one..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 lol no thanks. stop trying to come up with random alternatives to counter what i said. its getting ridiculous. we know green is a liar so its not so unrealistic to think he is lying here too which i think he is. i believe the deal for bell is done. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 lol no thanks. stop trying to come up with random alternatives to counter what i said. its getting ridiculous. we know green is a liar so its not so unrealistic to think he is lying here too which i think he is. i believe the deal for bell is done. Still isnt fact no matter how you dress it up. You frequently state as facts things which clearly are not. So... explain how you KNOW that someone is lying here ? There ARE alternatives that it could be. So to state it as fact suggests you have inside knowledge. If you do then state your case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 No, it isnt a fact. You suggesting it as such is only because it is what you want to believe. It is not too hard to accept that Green might not have actually spoken to either Bell OR his agents. As I said, it could just as easily have been Stockbridge who does the financial side of things at Ibrox. Could also have been Ahmad who seems heavily involved. Does NOT need to have been Green, despite you suggesting it does. I am not saying t he above is what HAS taken place but it is certainly plausible. Just as plausible as you suggesting that someone is lying. i believe green lying is a fact. that is the only thing i am claiming to be fact. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Still isnt fact no matter how you dress it up. You frequently state as facts things which clearly are not. So... explain how you KNOW that someone is lying here ? There ARE alternatives that it could be. So to state it as fact suggests you have inside knowledge. If you do then state your case. i just did. i have been told the deal is done and green played a part in it. simple really. its a fact hes talking nonsense when he said the deal wasnt done. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I believe you are lying is a fact..... good lord is this what we have come to ? So long as we prefix anything with "I believe" then everything is a fact ? That is just ridiculous. But have at it. So your source that the deal is done and Green was a part of it is impeccable ? Guaranteed to be correct ? Serious question because you are unwavering in your belief that your source is 100% correct. 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.