... where did I claim to have such knowledge? ... you said nothing he did was saca le offence ... yet he has been sacked ... sorry if that suggests to me that you are wrong in your assert...
I highlighted the relevant bit, but here you go again: ""None of the things he did were sackable offenses" ... yet he has been sacked? ... ergo they were then!".
You DON'T KNOW why he was sacked!!! So to say he was sacked for one or any of the incidents that were public knowledge (Bucks referred to "bizarre activities of grabbing opposing players by the throat and unstable ranting in press conferences", which is what I was responding to) is inaccurate. And in the same post in which you said: "there are many sweepingly assertive comments made on the board that have no real substance or 'inside knowledge' behind them...". The very definition of irony.
)