So given the ACTUAL scenario that unfolded and the way Radford gave his story live on the radio which had bs written all over it, swiftly followed up with a ridiculously cringeworthy bully boy tactics to berate not only Shaul but Lineham too, with threats of harm (albeit jocular, just why?) and an offer to help a player to go to another club by paying for his taxi (how prophetic or was it already on the cards even then...strange eh!)
And you actually beleive Radford, a person already outed as a twister of the truth, a person that doesn't stick to his words and a backstabber to boot over Shaul...okay then.

OK, you have just confirmed you are guessing and you don't know the facts.

Thanks

No didnt forget Westerman Jake. I dont think he was hounded out like Crooks,Lineham and possibly Shaul if the rumours are true.
Anyway as i said if Shaul isnt included and therefore doesnt get any game time against HKR then its looks like he will be on the way out.
Maybe the Smith situation has some bearing here.

I have read some crap on here in the past, but some of the comments on this Shaul story take the biscuit .Just because he did not play yeserday the rumour mill goes into overdrive then the usual suspects come along and make it a Radford issue . Lets get some facts before all this negativity kicks in again . the comment on how some can call themselves fans is spot on ,its not even honest opinion its the same people finding any excuse to have a dig its pathetic

Didn't Shaul play midweek against Bradford?

Radford last week on radio said Shaul is our fullback.
Yesterday compared to the likely starting 17 v Salford was basically a 2nd team. Shaul amongst loads to be left out. But this means he's leaving!!

agree totally, the drama queens are in overdrive

Guessing...er nope. I'm not guessing at all. I used the strong evidence what I heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes and from what i know as an indvidual gathered from life and work experience moulded it into a conclusion that I beleive to be true based on such....a bit like in court right? So you're not bothered about evidence based conclusions when it all points to certain things, that's up to you. Clearly you can't formulate anything of your own to counter it and would rather start with confirming you know nowt..hey ho.

In a court some of this is called hearsay evidence, and is inadmissible, unless it has been said to you by the defendant, in this case, Radford.
The the part about it being gathered from life and work experience, would come under the 'Expert witness opinion' category, and for it to be admissible would need your qualifications for being classed as such, revealed, in full, and being verified.
So for us to believe what you are writing, we will have to be convinced that you are an expert, and that you have heard Radford saying the things you accuse him of, and we have to disregard all the things you've heard someone tell you about him.

So let's hear the 'Evidence'

Yeh, exactly. I believe most court cases are decided my a deranged internet troll who has a clear personal dislike for the defendant (Radford), based purely on their warped opinion and interpretations of things said during media interviews (which they're unable to quote properly).

Throw the book at him your honour.

I'd love to know what 'life and work experience' evidence you've 'gathered' too. Testimony from a kid Radders wedgied at Primary School? Bank Statements showing Radford has a subscription to 'Bullies Monthly'? Some guy from the pub who's mum knows the bloke who does Radford's garden said Radford looked at him funny once? Please share.


Nice to have you back today Bumpy. Rlfans' most obnoxious poster 2015 is staking an early claim for the 2016 title.