Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:42 pm
nerd wrote:NJ73 wrote:And everything you've just typed there is pure conjecture.
Without knowing the content of the conversation between the two parties that took place a couple of weeks ago, any comment is guesswork. As far as we know, it may have been prior to the play off final and the Ipswich chairman verbally agreed to waive any supposed right to additional payments from promotion due to the fact Priskin had played little part in it and is now seeing £££ signs and going back on that agreement. This could be the reason for HJ saying he was not aware of any dispute.
Like I said, all conjecture.
Indeed, and your conjecture is not that realistic.
Are you telling my Jenkins, such a great businessman, wouldn't get that agreement notarised? Seriously? I mean, don't get me wrong, he's a c***, but that's a Ridsdale style ballsup if it happened as you claimed. Which is why I'd assess it as being not particularly likely.
If Ipswich waived any agreement, provided documentation to that extent, then it would have been very, very easy to refute Ipswich's claims with the evidence. Instead Jenkins' comments reference no such evidence, instead basing his view off a conversation.
Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:46 pm
NJ73 wrote:nerd wrote:NJ73 wrote:And everything you've just typed there is pure conjecture.
Without knowing the content of the conversation between the two parties that took place a couple of weeks ago, any comment is guesswork. As far as we know, it may have been prior to the play off final and the Ipswich chairman verbally agreed to waive any supposed right to additional payments from promotion due to the fact Priskin had played little part in it and is now seeing £££ signs and going back on that agreement. This could be the reason for HJ saying he was not aware of any dispute.
Like I said, all conjecture.
Indeed, and your conjecture is not that realistic.
Are you telling my Jenkins, such a great businessman, wouldn't get that agreement notarised? Seriously? I mean, don't get me wrong, he's a c***, but that's a Ridsdale style ballsup if it happened as you claimed. Which is why I'd assess it as being not particularly likely.
If Ipswich waived any agreement, provided documentation to that extent, then it would have been very, very easy to refute Ipswich's claims with the evidence. Instead Jenkins' comments reference no such evidence, instead basing his view off a conversation.
Who knows. I guess we'll learn more next week.
Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:48 pm
nerd wrote:
Agreed, and I suspect it'll be resolved by a settlement on the outstanding debt...
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:12 pm
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:17 pm
valleycasual wrote:jesus christ, thank god you give up there NJ........nerd had you running around in circles
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:29 pm
NJ73 wrote:valleycasual wrote:jesus christ, thank god you give up there NJ........nerd had you running around in circles
Aye, the guesswork, assumptions and conjecture had me done for
Yhe discussion was done as without evidence of exactly what's gone on apart from the contradictory public statements from each chairman, it was pointless.
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:38 pm
valleycasual wrote:NJ73 wrote:valleycasual wrote:jesus christ, thank god you give up there NJ........nerd had you running around in circles
Aye, the guesswork, assumptions and conjecture had me done for
Yhe discussion was done as without evidence of exactly what's gone on apart from the contradictory public statements from each chairman, it was pointless.
you were still running around in circles though
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:39 pm
Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:48 pm
Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:56 am
blackswan wrote:As i've already said,if Huw thinks they need paying then we'll pay.And if he doesn't,then............
it really is that simple and a non story.