Which of the consortia interested in the club had no money? The Dai family worth £2bn or the Grieve consortium worth £500m?
No it isn't. If I claim you are bankrupt and then OLM tells me that isn't true and that you are not who needs to show proof? Is it OLM for telling me I'm wrong or is it me for spouting ****e about a subject I don't have the facts for?
Really. I don't think so. Once we're sold, or the Allams say they are staying I'll post what I've found out.
Well that's fine, I was told by an exec at the club as I was intrigued as to how much cash they had, he said half a billion, but Grieve wasn't worth that much. Something may have been lost in translation and it may have been interpreted that it was Grieve alone buying the club or whatever, but as far as I know they had the cash to finance the deal, they just didn't want to. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'm okay with that, I'm not really that arsed about it.
I haven't a clue what that ^^^^^ is trying to say. The one making the positive claim carries the burden of proof. The alternative would require the proof of a negative.
I suggest you read it again then. As it's quite clear. The first person making a statement is the person who needs to back it up. It doesn't matter if it's a positive or a negative statement.
