This is why you should not be involved.Ki wrote:It's unneccessary for Scott to give you the money directly, when he can prove he donated it to your chosen charity by using Just Giving.
justgiving.com/charity/search?query=Charity%27s+name
It's unnecessary for Scott to not give me the money directly, because that was our agreement beforehand. Before he wanted to play the matches that he bet £100 for, I clearly stated this:
I clearly stated I will donate it to the local charity when I win. Where does it say that he needs to donate to the charity on my behalf? Scott never questioned that comment, because he was so confident that he would beat me. Look at my signature in that picture -- he thought he would smash me, and assumed I would lie about it beforehand. His assumptions regarding my trustworthiness stretch farther back than this money incident.
The funny thing is, after I won, this is what he had to say:
And to make it even funnier, this is what he said when he wagered £100 to me.
Key words: I will give you £100 if you beat me.
Did I beat him? Yes.
Did I get my money? No.
Scott is a pussy that is worming out of his side of the bet. There's proof behind it. He changes his mind after I win. Fact.
