Did i call you a liar no.

I said my understanding was that the Giants gave £12000 based on 40% of ticket sales.

It is a fact that 40% was given and it is a fact that 1500 plus attended. If that worked at at only 75% of what I estimated then i clearly underestimated the number of over 65s, under 12s and pre bought tickets. Even taking into account the 20% reduction in vat. If that is what it was then i have no problem accepting it.

But my post was written in a response to a facetious post by ME .

And as for your comment that none of this is written as a criticism of the Huddersfield how bizzarre that your post quotes how much money was recieved and then starts off with the fact that it is=#FF0000 your view that the Giants were shamed into it and then ends with the question about the Sky money. Fopr someone who is grateful it seems and interesting way of publicising it.

PM sent.

It is NOT a fact that 40% was given. READ THE GIANTS STATEMENT! The amount is clearly stated as:

"The first 500 will be at the usual 10%

The second 500 will be at 20%

The third 500 will be at 30%

and all sales over 1500 will be at 40%"

So, for 1500 (if it was that many - I think it was less) that would be an average of 20%. And of the average price paid, net of VAT.

And please don't insult us by putting up a straw man, and seeking to attribute to me a view I never expressed as mine. I stated a view that some expressed at the time. I have no view on that issue personally one way or the other, since I was not party to the decision.

Well on the basis of the article that would explain the discrepancy between what i estimated and what you said was recieved. I went on what i understood from someone who has more knowledge of the club and it's decisions than i do which stated that,



On that information i had i assumed maybe wrongly that you got 40%.

And as for the straw man comment you did preface and end your posts with negative inferences about the Giants. That would give any reader an impression that it is an anti Giants post. Whether they are your views or not you were happy enough to create the impression that what was a positive gesture from the Giants was in reality anything but.

To get back to the original post, i find it difficult to see anything else but a loss this weekend but never say it's a done deal, as long as we come away with no injuries i will be satisfied.

I think people would have thought rather better of you had you simply said something like: "Apologies, I based my statement on what appears to be incorrect information, and thank you for confirming the actual amount involved", but never mind. I think our readers are clear now.

I tell you what i will issue that EXACT apology when you apologise for dressing up a positive gesture from the Giants re giving the bulls money in a crisis situation with two negative and anti Giants comments.

Somehow i doubt you will do that so the readers can make up their own mind up.

Careful, Adey - someone may go ultra vires and try to ban you..

Bet he wishes he could lock THIS thread too!

No injuries has to be a given, looking at the fixtures we could realistically win 16 games this year amd lose 11 that with beating teams around us eg wakey, cas, kr, salford, london and then a couple of surprises against others

im pretty sure bradford will make the top 8 and also can we sign whitehead off ya please

1 - Its a big ask, but I think we have a chance if we can keep the injuries down. Thanks for your confidence!

2 - Er...no. But thanks for asking!

Contracted till the end of 2016, so I guess the answer is not just yet..