So the deal that was never on in the first place is off. Swann does not intend to sell – he just needed the next excuse.
Can you explain what evidence you have to tell us that the deal is off? (That is, the deal that you say was never on in the first place!!).
PS how do you know that there was no deal on the first place?
I want Swan gone as much as the next man, but all this BS is getting somewhat monotonous.
I was merely commenting on the on/off rumours and the fact Swann always appears to have an excuse for things go belly up. I have no evidence of anything –
like all others. I assumed, incorrectly, that this was quite clear in the wording; all very tongue in cheek. If its getting monotonous, don’t read the comments/twitter/social media.
