crucible 0 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 You haven't convinced me yet. You need to convince yourself of what you believe, I know what and whom I believe. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 I've said it before.as customers we have the right to ask where our money is going, and who is involved in our club. The fact that the Blue Pitch and their allies are supporting a convicted criminal and his co-accused suggests that they deserve some scrutiney. The Record may be anti- Rangers, but that doesn't mean that every thing they write should be dismissed out of hand. We've been down this road with Whyte. The allegations of bullying have surfaced elsewhere - does nayone know what is going on? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 You need to convince yourself of what you believe, I know what and whom I believe. The Jackson story like the rest are all fluff as you know, the nitty gritty is the AGM let's get a date set. I'm looking for a supporter of the present Board to give me a convincing arguement of why I should vote for them. Sorry you are not willing to be the one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 You need to convince yourself of what you believe, I know what and whom I believe. Jack Irvine? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Just as a matter of record the information which PM claims solicitors garnered under the FOI is nonsense, as it is not covered by FOI acts either under the parliament acts or the Scottish act of 2002. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 if they are legally entitled to anonymity why the panic over them being revealed. it won't happen. of course they are going to be revealed........ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Just as a matter of record the information which PM claims solicitors garnered under the FOI is nonsense, as it is not covered by FOI acts either under the parliament acts or the Scottish act of 2002. then why was it supplied? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 when keith jackson revealed whyte was mortgaging of our very future. jack irvine attacked keith jackson. anyone see where i am going here. i would be highy suspicious of the motives of anyone attacking keith over this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Just as a matter of record the information which PM claims solicitors garnered under the FOI is nonsense, as it is not covered by FOI acts either under the parliament acts or the Scottish act of 2002. then why was it supplied? I refer you to my previous post which is self explanatory. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 I'm highly suspicious of who these people are. Reading between the lines, I suspect Jackson knows, and is seeking some form of corroboration before running the story. My worry about all this is the legally binding assurances provided by Green in order to get the transfer of SFA membership from oldco to newco. What exactly is detailed in the assurance, and would the presence of Whyte within either BPH or Margarita result in our membership being revoked? 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.