Country: England
Fair. I think in matters like this it's best to avoid any and all parties with a personal interest in the matter because bias gets involved. Whereas the PFA chief is more of a neutral and actually looked at the contract.I appreciate it kind of did go that way, buy it wasn't anything personal.
You also talk about providing evidence from the horses mouth, yet chose to ignore what Henry said, that in itself is contradictory.
What I was trying to get across in my post, is that people here rewrite history, cherry pick what they want to hear, and use that to support their argument.
I have no idea what your opinion is on this imaginary offer of x amount of money and they would have bitten our hand off, there's absolutely nothing to support that suggestion, but it gets thrown around like a truth.
There are plenty of examples of us leaving ourselves short in every window without posters making fictious claims.
I think we can both agree that this has run its course, this thread has been hijacked, it really doesn't matter or will change what actually happened. You have your opinion and I disagree, but not let's pretend there is indisputable evidence, and suggest people don't like facts eh.
It's all good anyway, apologise for the saltiness mate. Mr 3rd out of 92 has been getting me angry.