Search results

Ok so you're saying they were wrong and corrected themselves. That's fine by me. I don't have a problem, I'm just saying that when they say there's nothing in a rumour, that doesn't mean that there's nothing in a rumour, and it seems you agree.

Maybe, I don't know, but my (original) point was that the Argus saying it wasn't happening didn't suddenly make it impossible that it was.

I didn't say they were. It wouldn't be a surprise if they were, given that they were likely to lose their best central defender, but I don't know whether they were or not.

Nothing pedantic about it at all. How many tweets they made is irrelevant. They said there was no truth in it, but there was. That's what we were discussing.

So we know for a fact that Leicester didn't ask Brighton if Dunk would be available? It's not possible that Brighton simply told Leicester that Dunk was our Captain and wouldn't be going anywhere?

Yes things can and do change. It is however obvious that our club were trying to get at least one striker and they would have been on it since Potter arrived, and possibly before. It seems that the Argus (and this isn't a criticism of them) didn't have any knowledge of which strikers we were...

Oh I'm sure they reported in good faith. Nowhere have I ever suggested that they lie. When they say that Leicester aren't interested in Dunk I'm sure that's also in good faith. I think that's extremely unlikely. Indeed.

WTF? There's nothing pedantic about it, that's what this conversation is about. Someone said Leicester weren't interested in Dunk, because the Argus said so. I pointed out that they said there was no truth in the Maupay rumour, and that they were wrong. Jem disagreed with me. That's it. So I...

Didn't they claim that Leicester weren't interested in him? We have no idea whether that was correct or not.

I've already said above, but happy to repeat: If the Argus say that we're interested in a player, or made contact etc, I've got quite a bit of confidence that they're right. If the Argus say we're not interested in a player, I take that with a large dose of salt. Maybe we aren't, or if we are I...

But that's not what he's claiming. He's claiming that when they said there was no truth in the Maupay rumour, they weren't wrong.

Articles, links and tweets? You claimed that there was no activity regarding Maupay on the 10th June because we were pursuing other targets, and when asked what targets these were (as identified by the Argus) you came up with an article written 7 weeks later. So who were these other targets? I...

It was about whether Leicester could have been interested in Dunk. The claim was that the Argus said they weren't, therefore that should be an end to the matter. I simply pointed out that they don't always know when there's interest in a player. It's not a wild claim, I'm clearly right, but Jem...

I don't know why you're taking this so personally. To claim that their 100s of tweets over 10 years have all been correct is laughable. Part of the reason I don't treat their work as gospel is that when they say we're not interested in someone they often get it wrong.

I'm simply aware that the club do their best to stop leaks on potential transfers, which means that the Argus often don't know about transfer news until after others have already revealed it. That in itself is no great slur against the Argus, but you're ignoring the facts and claiming that...

Right, so they linked us to one other striker (who, incidentally, had already been confirmed on here). You are arguing that maybe we hadn't shown interest in Maupay by the 10th of June, because we were pursuing other targets, yet the only other target you're able to come up with is Youssef...

I asked you to quote the strikers the Argus linked us to. Can you do that?

Quick, delete your messages!

Because it's bloody obvious. We'll have been planning to make a move for a striker for months, and would have made a shortlist before the transfer window opened. We knew we needed a new striker, it wasn't a case of just getting one if a decent one fell into our lap. It was then reported in the...

They didn't say we hadn't bid, they said there was no truth in us being after Maupay. That was incorrect. Someone here posted that the Argus saying that Dunk to Leicester was unlikely to happen was enough to tell them it wouldn't happen. I am simply being objective, and highlighting that the...