crucible

Are you trying to suggest that the narrative FS provided, which is seemingly from the Pinsent Masons report, if true, is not speculation ?

 

The use of "The terms of any arrangement (if there was one)", "there is the possibility", "if he did" are all statements of speculation. Certainly from my viewpoint.

It is from the fakes site and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, what I am saying is quite clear, why you are having difficulty understanding it is your problem.

Very poor.

 

The boldened quotes dont tell the full story. Your quote was in response to some narrative FS provided and it could easily be construed that you were suggesting the narrative came from CF - but the way you present it above is as if the 3 boldened quotes were one after the other which makes it look how you want it to i.e. that you suggested CF is speculating - however, FS's 2nd post there was pointing out that the narrative, he believed, came from Pinsent Masons.

 

Poor show crucible.

You are having a laugh, the proffered evidence comes from the fakes as everyone knows, FS clearly states he believes it is Pinsent Masons who is speculating, what your problem is beats me, what is a real poor show is trying to pass off fakes as support for any view.

I know Pinsent Masons are a well respected company, you need to speculate that is up to you.

Who's actually doing the speculating though?

 

Let me hazard a guess and say charlotte fakes.

My guess is Pinsent Masons.

Perhaps it was but I'm not convinced so.

Ignoring the message because you don't like the messenger is a policy that worksed oh so well in regards to Whyte eh?

 

Nobody's doubting the honesty of Pinsent Masons, quite the reverse really.

Best leave it with you and fakes till you decide what you mean and if as you previously claimed Pinsent Masons are spinning and to what end.

Care to point out where I state Pinsent Mason's are spinning or where I cast aspersions on them being 'honest'?

I will definitely leave it with you, work to do.

Like I said I will leave it with you until you decide what you mean, whither speculating which was the word you used, or being honest or spinning or whatever you mean based on something you lifted from fakes.

Best leave it with you and fakes till you decide what you mean and if as you previously claimed Pinsent Masons are spinning and to what end.

They don"t because as in all dictatorships challenge is not tolerated and is silenced, even in such small and nondescript ones who infect a host.

A Rangers hating source of nonsense if ever there was one no perhaps about it, what is it coming to when fakes is used as an oracle to discredit an honest inquiry and company, shameless is what it is.

You did lift your supporting paragraph from the fakes ?

Let me hazard a guess and say charlotte fakes.

All we know about Pinsent Masons report is what Irvine has spun to us not exactly an endorsement that much confidence can be placed in is it?

I know Pinsent Masons are a well respected company, you need to speculate that is up to you.

Spew Keevins wrote it.

Yes and between them Nuremberg and Jackson managed a cornucopia of unmitigated malice towards The Rangers with only one end, that to stir up and regurgitate that which had already been laid to rest by Pinsent Masons.

My fervent hope is that Pinsent Masons take these haters to task for implying some sort of incompetence or worse on the part of Pinsent Masons .

It would appear you didn't know or didn't want to acknowledge AJ said that, endorsing Whyte that is.

No need to rewrite history when it is all there.

Although Johnston said the board was split on whether the Whyte deal would get over the finishing line, he added: “The board are reflective of my view which is, if we can get this thing right, it will be good.”

“I think he is a businessman who is very bright and I think he has been very strategic, historically, in how successful he has been. He has done it but keeps his cards very close to his chest. I could tell that his analysis was very enthusiastic but realistic. I would say that he is aspirational but realistic.”

What are the obvious qualifications it is either of substance or it isn't, a story dumped without any thought to consequence or effect of any further action by the SFA if they are shown to have been mislead.

Shameful by aj to start a subject and carried with glee by jackson and Nuremberg doesn't even begin to cover it.

The real people unfit for purpose are the biased media.

The scaremonger in reality gave Whyte a glowing reference stating how good he was.....until he was bagged.

Why is he doing this why is he handing the biggest stick possible to our enemies, who needs enemies indeed with sensationalists like aj.

Keith Jackson and the rhebel.

I`m touched by your faith in Mr Green`s integrity .

You would do better to be touched by the ability of the authorities to visit the worst possible retribution upon us without an ex-chairman throwing petrol on a fire that was all but out.

Shut up ffs.

 

I've put I believe he is involved in one of the faceless entities that invested in the club. It's merely an opinion.

 

The polis or the SFA will not be running round to Ibrox in the morning on the basis of me starting a thread on gersnet about spivs, cheats and robbing bastards.

 

In saying that if Stockbridge and co read this maybe they'll try and ban me from Ibrox

Perhaps and more probably it is you who should shut up.

As part of a "five way agreement" between Sevco, the Rangers oldco, the Scottish FA, SPL and SFL, Green was ordered to confirm Sevco Scotland, which now trades as The Rangers Football Club Limited, had no connection with Whyte or any of his associates.

Green was also asked to give an "irrevocable commitment" for the company to have no future connection with Whyte or associates in the future.

Folk are discussing it. I believe he and or ticketus are there somewhere. But maybe that's just me. It's not rumourmongering or claimed to be fact

Posting such and putting it in the public domain is certainly rumourmongering of the worst kind that we can well do without.

Too late the car crash that is AJ has it all over the back page of the rhebel.

Folk are giving an opinion, thought that was allowed? No?

That why I asked is just unsubstantiated rumourmongering or claimed to be fact, I for one have no hesitation in dismissing it as rumour.

Not really. People are saying it but at this point it is on message boards and no more than rumour. The SFA have to prove it to be the case.

 

Are you suggesting that it would be difficult to hide from the SFA if Whyte WAS involved ? We have "institutional investors" that we still don't know who is behind the corporate veil. Is it really outwith the realms of possibility that whyte isn't behind one of those investors under someone else's name ?

 

Do we honestly believe that it is that difficult for someone to front the money, and use their name, for Whyte's involvement ?

 

Have we not seen how much of a devious, conning bastard Craig Whyte is ? Are we to believe he wouldn't stoop this low ?

 

I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if he was somehow still lurking. I don't think he is, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I would be more than very surprised that he was in any way involved, or are the people making the claims saying it is fact as opposed to rumourmongering.

Trust me, that would be very, very easy to hide. Remember, we are talking about shifty bastards who know how to hide their involvement. We are also talking about complete incompetent bastards at the SFA too.

If people are openly saying or claiming Whyte is about and involved it is hardly hidden from anyone, I would think even the incompetent SFA scan message boards.

I have read two theories today that wouldn't be out of place on timmy boards, one saying ticketus may still be involved and now this about Whyte, I always thought you couldn't make it up seems I was wrong.