Jump to content

Is It Unethical To Overcharge Liverpool For Sander Berge?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, cmonkes said:

I don't have any problem with you being on the forum at all...it is a wonderful place of debate, opinion and freedom of speech. 

 

What I do have a problem with is the continuous fictional posts! Ones that make grand claims about United, but hold no proof what so ever.

 

Fictional comments with intent to cause unrest.

There's far more fabrication in your post's than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, barry-333 said:

Berge signed a contract to play for us and should not be sold, we havn't seen the best of him yet

DO NOT SELL

Means nothing if he decides he wants to leave. Players have all the power now,  if he wants to go he'll make it happen. Of course it would be nice if he would give you another season and if you don't go straight up then let him leave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brooker11 said:

There's far more fabrication in your post's than mine.

Point out which part you believe to be fabricated and I will happily back it up with a factual link and proof 👍.

 

Always take time to research before posting anything that I don't already know to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brooker11 said:

There's far more fabrication in your post's than mine.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/sheffield-united-accounts-blades-must-attempt-to-soften-the-financial-blow-relegation-from-the-premier-league-will-bring-3187312

 

At just to reiterate and back up previous factual replies to figures that you threw into the ring without any form of factual evidence.

 

Sheffield United's loan note was £38m, which is far, far less than the ridiculously inflated figures that you brought to the forum.... and ultimately a small percentage of out projected £94m net profit for the season. 

 

The reason we took out loan notes in the first place was to keep us sustainable in the wake of purchasing assets from previous owners and to make up for the losses due to covid.

 

Out bank books are going to be fine and there is no urgency to sell players  despite your fictional claims otherwise.

 

Just to point of further inaccuracies moderators. Time after time, this member posts completely fictional and inaccurate posts, bordering libel at times. I'm not arguing with him, but merely pointing out fact. If you believe otherwise then feel free to act accordingly.....this needs stopping! Post after post of fictional garbage, designed to cause unrest and start petty argument. It's sad really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cmonkes said:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/sheffield-united-accounts-blades-must-attempt-to-soften-the-financial-blow-relegation-from-the-premier-league-will-bring-3187312

 

At just to reiterate and back up previous factual replies to figures that you threw into the ring without any form of factual evidence.

 

Sheffield United's loan note was £38m, which is far, far less than the ridiculously inflated figures that you brought to the forum.... and ultimately a small percentage of out projected £94m net profit for the season. 

 

The reason we took out loan notes in the first place was to keep us sustainable in the wake of purchasing assets from previous owners and to make up for the losses due to covid.

 

Out bank books are going to be fine and there is no urgency to sell players  despite your fictional claims otherwise.

 

Just to point of further inaccuracies moderators. Time after time, this member posts completely fictional and inaccurate posts, bordering libel at times. I'm not arguing with him, but merely pointing out fact. If you believe otherwise then feel free to act accordingly.....this needs stopping! Post after post of fictional garbage, designed to cause unrest and start petty argument. It's sad really.

The £38m is the loan taken against the ground, the MaQuarrie loan is a totally seperate issues.

 

I think the moderators have more sense than to listen to your desperate pleas, I'm now going to block your posts and I suggest you do the same with mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/04/2021 at 22:23, Brooker11 said:

The £38m is the loan taken against the ground, the MaQuarrie loan is a totally seperate issues.

 

I think the moderators have more sense than to listen to your desperate pleas, I'm now going to block your posts and I suggest you do the same with mine.

Feel free to block mine, however I'm an adult and have the ability to stay within the very simple rules of the forum.

 

Likewise, should you continue to post inaccurate, fictional posts...I will continue to challenge them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.