Oh of course you don't openly say if as you are not that stupid. You use implication as per the post above.
What this does is suggest their MAY be credence due to the possibility he may be a good manager for them - your frequent commenting on the Reid article on a thread which has nothing to do with the topic is very telling. It creates an impression as to which of the two has most credence and suggests the telegraph has the greater stature. Somewhat amusing given the outcome of the recent ethics review and Gilbert's absence in here,
You didn't denounce the article as I'll founded nonsense. You applied the same undermining innuendo deployed by other council stereotypes on the Pressley goes to Huddersfield thread.
You will now make a post about the fact I haven't produced a direct quote.
However, perception is you are not favourable to the CCFC cause. The circumstantial evidence is against you.
You try too hard.
I referred to the story as a " nothing happened today story ". He may be a good manager for a ( meaning any ) championship team, but I hope he finishes the job here. You interpreted that as there may be credence in the non story? I ended my last post with " who knows?". I certainly don't. Strange.
i didn't denounce the article as ill founded nonsense because, as I just said, I certainly don't know. You see that as an undermining innuendo. Strange.
Yes. Here goes: Grendel hasn't posted a direct quote, because, as he knows, there isn't one and he is twisting facts in a way that Mutton would be proud off. Strange.
I keep mentioning that we have no stadium and no stadium site. We have no evidence that building is better then renting and that we should have offered up to the building guesstimate of Tim, for both shares and the YB loan - if ownership of the stadium is essential to CCFC's survival. You count that as unfavourable to the CCFC cause. Strange.
you are strange.