“I only said that hull wanted him to go to celtic,and he refused,that is the same as the media version of events,so how is my version flawed”
That isn’t the same as some of the media version of events though. Some of the media version of events (in print & online) have him as being more than prepared to go but demanding a large pay increase to do so. Your version of events is that Bullard didn’t want to go, Hull tried to force him to go & he dug his heels in and that “may” be where the pay increase strories have come from. One story has come from someone high up at Hull & another from Bullard himself
“do you want to clarify what you meant in the hull/celtic saga – you have made an assumption based on newspaper/message board tickle tackle,when in fact you know nothing”
Look up “saga” in a thesaurus & it will link it to story, tale, account, chronicle, history & narrative amongst others. That is what I meant. The issue I have now is you appearing to tell anybody who has a view on Bullard’s transfer history over the last 4 years that is different from your own that they “know nothing” because you have heard a different story from a) Bullard himself & b) 2nd hand from someone that knows Bullard
The views I hold on Jimmy Bullard are not purely based on “newspaper/message board tickle tackle” nor do they have “no factual basis” purely coz I didn’t hear them directly from Jimmy Bullard. There views I hold having listened to people like yourself with “this is what really happened” versions of events, club statements, newspaper accounts, internet gossip, messageboard postings etc.. & having done so I’ve formed an opinion which I’m as free to express as the next person
As for this opinion having “no factual basis” – if a historical study uses merely one piece of evidence as the basis for its findings whilst another looks at a wide variety of sources & different types of evidence as the basis for its findings on the same subject, I know which study’s findings I’d consider the most valid
