From sccgers on FF re takeover and transfers

[craig 5,199]

It puts into context the level of his gambling and the level of his debts.

 

How so ? He could have gambled 100 quid and been hounded by hoodlums over a very small debt. The statement in no way puts any quantum on the debt (other than to say that it was more than he could pay back)

 

Besides, the point (at least as I saw it) was that his father was a professional gambler and that SDM himself was showing the same tendencies - was the outcome of his father's gambling really necessary ? I still fail to see what the need was for stating his father's demise.

 

That said, we are, in my opinion, debating semantics. I will refrain as it merely highlights the comment and achieves nothing.

[andy steel 0]

Well I won't - it was a gratuitous comment, nasty and uncalled for. Didn't enlighten me one iota about David Murray and even if it did, good manners would have prevented me dwelling on the failings of our fathers.

 

I may be hazarding a stab in the dark here, but this sort of thing may just be a clue as to why the club hierarchy dislike the online community. We are all tarred with the same brush.

 

Anyway. It stays, so that's that. But I would be uncomfortable not airing my discomfort.

[wabashcannonball 0]

The first casualty of Pravda is the truth, warts and all, liberalism has a lot to answer for.

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showpost.php?p=202872&postcount=14