Why do we have to "
trust that PS is telling the truth that the offers are not credible"...
("Credible" sounds like opinion.)
..any more than we should trust the second hand car salesmen who implies that the car has been driven only by a vicar...
..or the Estate Agent who insists that "deceptively spacious" doesn't mean "rather small" ?
Instead of just saying "
The offers weren't not high enough",
Scally feels the need to double down and impugn past enquirers.
Haven't we had enough of attacking the (in this case un-named) person instead of the argument ?
Make an amount public - why not ?
Either he can state the amount offered - or he can indicate an amount he would aspire to.
Either way, he can say the enquirer was "a long way off".
And then, referencing the Accounts we can take a view.
If he has had offers, why insult them ?
Or could it be that no-one has offered a penny, hence it is easier to traduce an un-named party.
Each to his own....