Keith Jackson:

[D'Artagnan 173]

I don't see the point in a comparison between RTC & CF. They seem to be completely different or am I missing something?

 

FWIW, I thought the Pinsent Masons report would probably be a sham before it was even conducted and so did quite a few others on here. If that thing is our only defense we're bloody well screwed because it's probably not worth the paper it was written on despite costing the club hundreds of thousands!

 

The point I was making Zap was the RTC promulgated material that was also, to use your wording "ligit".

 

Can I ask you with you thought it would be a sham ?

[Zappa 0]

Can I ask you with you thought it would be a sham ?

 

I simply didn't trust Green or any of his close associates in their scheme to provide the investigators with the truth. It was also akin to the old turkeys not wanting to vote for Xmas situation. As it turns out, we're being given sight of leaked parts of the investigation report which say that certain parties didn't fully cooperate with the investigation, which to be frank, comes as absolutely zero surprise at all.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Which means this very public statement by a reputable legal firm is a lie or at the very least being very economical with the truth.

 

"The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry.

 

"Based on the assessment of the available evidence, the Company considers that the Investigation found no evidence that Craig Whyte had any involvement with Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited), the company which ultimately acquired the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. from its administrators; nor which would suggest that Craig Whyte invested in The Rangers Football Club Limited or Rangers International Football Club plc, either directly or indirectly through any third party companies or vehicles."

[54andcounting 0]

It frightens me that one day sometime in the future the corrupt SFA may pull a big whyte rabbit out the bag.

[Zappa 0]

Which means this very public statement by a reputable legal firm is a lie or at the very least being very economical with the truth.

 

"The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry.

 

"Based on the assessment of the available evidence' date=' the Company considers that the Investigation found no evidence that Craig Whyte had any involvement with Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited), the company which ultimately acquired the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. from its administrators; nor which would suggest that Craig Whyte invested in The Rangers Football Club Limited or Rangers International Football Club plc, either directly or indirectly through any third party companies or vehicles."[/quote']

 

There's essentially a caveat and big fat get-out clause inserted into the very first line of that statement though D'Art.

 

By saying "despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry" the legal eagles have basically covered their tailored suit clad rear ends.

 

The start of the second sentence does likewise when it states "Based on the assessment of the available evidence".

 

If anything, the arse covering in that statement actually lends credence to the section of their report which was leaked and the notion that Green & other parties didn't fully cooperate.

[D'Artagnan 173]

There's essentially a caveat and big fat get-out clause inserted into the very first line of that statement though D'Art.

 

By saying "despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry" the legal eagles have basically covered their tailored suit clad rear ends.

 

The start of the second sentence does likewise when it states "Based on the assessment of the available evidence".

 

If anything, the arse covering in that statement actually lends credence to the section of their report which was leaked and the notion that Green & other parties didn't fully cooperate.

 

I simply dont buy that Zap - but its all about opinions.

 

If the investigation had been hampered by non co-operation I would expect that to be detailed nor would I expect to see the word "thorough" in there. Furthermore given the leaks which were gushing out of our club had CG refused to co-operate I think someone would have shouted.

[Zappa 0]

I simply dont buy that Zap - but its all about opinions.

 

If the investigation had been hampered by non co-operation I would expect that to be detailed nor would I expect to see the word "thorough" in there.

 

Is the inclusion of the word 'thorough' really noteworthy other than to point out the words which immediately follow it in the same sentence?

 

What they've said is that they've thoroughly looked over the information which was available to them ("available evidence")' date=' but at the same time also been extremely clear in pointing out that there were inherent limitations to their inquiry.

 

Now that's not an [i']opinion[/i] or reading into their words to see what I want to see or anything, that's what it says right there in the statement in black and white.

 

Furthermore given the leaks which were gushing out of our club had CG refused to co-operate I think someone would have shouted.

 

Someone has shouted though. Green was ushered out the back door as quietly as possible with a big fat pay-off (probably to keep his mouth shut!) and the Pinsent report or at least parts of it have been leaked. Ok' date=' so it might not be one of our own people who leaked it, in fact it probably [i']wasn't[/i], but why would any of our own people leak something like that back then when we were getting rid of Green anyway, especially if his departure required a pay-off to shut him up?

 

Don't get me wrong D'Art, this is not a comfortable thing to be discussing like this, but what are we supposed to do? Say "sssshhhhhh, don't speak about it! Nothing to see here!" and do a yahoo style sweep sweep routine?

 

Truth is, there might NOT be any problems facing us because there might genuinely be nothing to see, but we won't know until there's more disclosures and transparency. The sooner that happens, the better because until this mess is all cleared up the club can't recover properly and sleep safely at night without looking over it's shoulder and silently worrying about yahoo and SFA threats.

[barca72 440]

Truth is, there might NOT be any problems facing us because there might genuinely be nothing to see, but we won't know until there's more disclosures and transparency. The sooner that happens, the better because until this mess is all cleared up the club can't recover properly and sleep safely at night without looking over it's shoulder and silently worrying about yahoo and SFA threats.

 

That last paragraph has some merit. However, D'Art is right it's all about opinion. It seems to me that you are not really giving us evidence, but rather an opinion that the Pinsent Mason report is somehow incomplete. How many reports, investigations, tribunals etc. will it take to be conclusive? Just what kind of statement will satisfy you, and from whom?

The SFA seemed to be satisfied with the Pinsent Mason report, that in and of itself says something. Even if it only tells us that they are too skint to initiate their own probe.

[amms 0]

This is easily solved gentlemen. Crucible could get a good nights sleep without his recurring Stewart Regan nightmare and D'Art and Barca could rightly say 'we told you so' if, if, the identity of the people who own that large shareholding in Our club was a matter of public record.

There is no need for secrecy here and it only leads to mistrust.

 

Why don't you want I know? Why isn't it important to you to know who owns and controls our club?

[D'Artagnan 173]

This is easily solved gentlemen. Crucible could get a good nights sleep without his recurring Stewart Regan nightmare and D'Art and Barca could rightly say 'we told you so' if, if, the identity of the people who own that large shareholding in Our club was a matter of public record.

There is no need for secrecy here and it only leads to mistrust.

 

Why don't you want I know? Why isn't it important to you to know who owns and controls our club?

 

Its not that I dont want to know amms - my above arguments are purely around the fact that I dont think that the unknown shareholder is either Craig Whyte or anyone connected to him.

 

Yes I would like to know - but I also recognise that there exists an obligation that an investor has the right to anonymity should they choose.

 

Dont you think that the revelation or persecution of anonymous investors to be named, particularly when it is built upon scaremongering, has considerable potential to damage our club with regard to future investment ?