scotjo 19 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Had a listen to the last caller on Clyde having a go at Keevins ( Don't listen normally as a rule obviously) but Keevins said certain players wouldn't have signed, fact is it was a legal scheme, but King said the players would have signed regardless and far from giving us an advantage we had to pay costs for advice from the Murray Group. I know Keevins is a rat, and he should get his facts straight. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo79 13,841 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Are we ever going to hear the end of this? Not if the demented, obsessed yahoos get their way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,336 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 these people simply cannot accept they've lost this argument & are now clutching at straws 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Had a listen to the last caller on Clyde having a go at Keevins ( Don't listen normally as a rule obviously) but Keevins said certain players wouldn't have signed, fact is it was a legal scheme, but King said the players would have signed regardless and far from giving us an advantage we had to pay costs for advice from the Murray Group.I know Keevins is a rat, and he should get his facts straight. I've heard Shug say this several times...maybe he should be "encourage" to provide some evidence of his claims..... I don't doubt that the LEGAL ebt scheme certainly encouraged players to sign, but as far as I'm aware there is zero evidence to prove that a-none of these players would have signed without an ebt, and b-other options couldn't have been tabled to ensure their signature. "Would you have signed without an EBT"....."No" "Would you have signed for an extra £1000 per week...."Yes" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Had a listen to the last caller on Clyde having a go at Keevins ( Don't listen normally as a rule obviously) but Keevins said certain players wouldn't have signed, fact is it was a legal scheme, but King said the players would have signed regardless and far from giving us an advantage we had to pay costs for advice from the Murray Group.I know Keevins is a rat, and he should get his facts straight. Is this not one of those instances where King originally said we couldn't have afforded them ? And then backtracked and said we would have ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 in defence of Hugh, he says a lot of things that are downright wrong and wildly exaggerated so he can wind up listeners. Don't forget the tims fell out with him as well even though he's one of them. I remember he likened our card displays to the Nuremberg rallies........and went off air for a fortnight while we raged.......we called him Nuremberg after that.....so sometimes he goes too far..........but he has me in stitches........I'm an avid fan 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.