the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 All a wee bit hollywood isn't it? its the simplest and most plausible senario given all the evidence. occams razor. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 its the simplest and most plausible senario given all the evidence. occams razor. Why the hell would Whyte be doing all this if he's actually in on it then? It's only creating hysterics. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 why would he be raising a law suit to take control of the club. because its always been his plan? as I say hoping they are no longer in cahoots is about as good as it gets. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 why would he be raising a law suit to take control of the club. because its always been his plan? as I say hoping they are no longer in cahoots is about as good as it gets. Does Whyte's history of such bluster not decrease his credibility? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Green on tape - "You are Sevco, that’s what we are saying.” Greens response to claims - “Whyte is trying to tout that he was behind the whole deal. He says he has tape recordings of Imran and me saying that he is Sevco 5088. Which is all true. We were warned before we ever met him that he would be taping things“ This article has Green admitting that Whyte was behind his consortium to take over the club. That if the CVA went through, Whyte would be majority shareholder. So for starters, Green's been lying to us. Of course the CVA didn't go through and the assets were transferred to Sevco 5088, the company of which Whyte was the majority shareholder. Greens response to claims - “The only agreements that I entered into with Craig Whyte were that he would hand the shares over and the indemnity to enable the CVA to go ahead and in the event that it didn’t go ahead then those shares and that company would go back to Whyte.“It would be no good to me anyway because we were now going down the Newco route and that’s why we had this Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland. “The agreements between Craig Whyte and Sevco were that that was conditional on the CVA.” But wait a minute. Did Green not say that Whyte was Sevco 5088? So let me get this right here. Sevco 5088 under the ownership of Whyte purchased the assets and Green then transferred the assets without the owners permission to Sevco Scotland? Am I wrong?. Please someone tell me I'm wrong . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 This article has Green admitting that Whyte was behind his consortium to take over the club. That if the CVA went through, Whyte would be majority shareholder. So for starters, Green's been lying to us. Of course the CVA didn't go through and the assets were transferred to Sevco 5088, the company of which Whyte was the majority shareholder. But wait a minute. Did Green not say that Whyte was Sevco 5088? So let me get this right here. Sevco 5088 under the ownership of Whyte purchased the assets and Green then transferred the assets without the owners permission to Sevco Scotland? Am I wrong?. Please someone tell me I'm wrong . He's saying it's true that that was said to him, not that it's the case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 He's saying it's true that that was said to him, not that it's the case. What part isn't the case? That Whyte was Sevco 5088? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Does Whyte's history of such bluster not decrease his credibility? to par with greens given his ever changing story. yes. we've gone from I met him once last Tuesday Thursday and Friday. to sure he introduced me to d&p but that was just a coincidence they were in the same restuaunt as us. to sure I told him he would be the owner but I was lying. where next in this ever changing one off meeting. sure we gave him millions but he's wanting more but he's not getting it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 He's saying it's true that that was said to him, not that it's the case. a defence of sure I said it bit I lied will go down well in court. I hope they didn't meet in Scotland where verbal contracts are binding. or did a judge in the ticketus case already rule that Scots law applies to rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 a defence of sure I said it bit I lied will go down well in court. I hope they didn't meet in Scotland where verbal contracts are binding. or did a judge in the ticketus case already rule that Scots law applies to rangers. Craig Whyte going to court doesn't concern me in the slightest. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.