@goldcoast tiger said:
@Geo. said:
@goldcoast tiger said:
Sounds exactly what was said in the first article that I saw about this debacle, and exactly what is "supposed" to have been agreed with the club in the meeting with Farah
And his manager.
**That was before Taylor rang Souths and tried to do a deal with them to swap Farah with McQueen now.**
Would have been a piece of sanity in this. So it was highly likely to fail.
Would have been a good way out for everyone.
Did this actually happen or is it hearsay,,,I can not find anything official or otherwise to say it did….Can you link the source please...
It was Not long after the whole thing blew up, I didn't have a link as I haven't got a clue how to link anything, as I've saud before. I can only say that I think it was a Paul Kent article that reported it. And almost everything said in this whole stuff up is hearsay.
But that was what was said in the article that I read.
Geo, I found one of the articles in question
Still can't do links As you are probably know .
This one was similar to the earlier one that I saw.
If you are interested go to Pressreader , and type. "Tigers Exit sealed after meeting where extent of rift was revealed" and it should come up
It was by James Phelp, August 27
It wasn't in direct quotes , but if that was a qualification of posts here, this whole thread would be only about 7 pages instead of 173 pages.
Obviously a couple here got their knickers in a knot and questionedthat whether what I said was true.
So they might want to check Pressreader out themselves.
Obviously they didn't actually read my original post.
As I said quite clearly in the first sentence, that the post previous to mine " sounded exactly like what was said in the first article about this debacle, and is exactly what is "supposed "to have been agreed with the club in the meeting with Farah and his manager,
I said "was supposed" to have , not that I have a certified copy of what was said,
I'm quite happy to admit if I'm wrong on a post, and have done that on more than one occasion and would be happy to do so on this one, only I'm not wrong,
As what I posted was what I read. And it was up to anyone as to what they want to think about it.
As I said , I doubt that 95 %of what's on this thread ( on both sides) could be verified. But I didn't write "supposed to be" just for the fun of it