Keith Jackson:

[Zappa 0]

Well ask yourself this amms - do you really believe that if that excerpt was authentic - then the SFA would have been satisfied with the investigation to such an extent that they decided not to launch their own ?

 

Since when did we start basing our thought processes and beliefs on what the SFA did or didn't do though? The SFA has been a complete and utter shambles for years and even more so since Stewart Regan took over at the helm and started outsourcing Hampden's thinking and decision making to anonymous 3 man panels.

 

Not only that, but the SFA have done absolutely nothing to suggest that our club and fans can trust them. Quite the opposite in fact and that's why so many of us feel that the SFA are just waiting on the opportunity to hammer us again and could even be saving certain things for the right opportunity to do so.

[Zappa 0]

Btw, was there not some kind of mention of uncertainty regarding the Pinsent Masons report from the auditors in the accounts?

[D'Artagnan 173]

Since when did we start basing our thought processes and beliefs on what the SFA did or didn't do though? The SFA has been a complete and utter shambles for years and even more so since Stewart Regan took over at the helm and started outsourcing Hampden's thinking and decision making to anonymous 3 man panels.

 

Not only that, but the SFA have done absolutely nothing to suggest that our club and fans can trust them. Quite the opposite in fact and that's why so many of us feel that the SFA are just waiting on the opportunity to hammer us again and could even be saving certain things for the right opportunity to do so.

 

Well its matter of choice Zap - Id rather base it on that than a set of papers circulated by an unknown person (s) to cause maximum damage to our club.

[crucible 0]

The only person I've come across on here who thinks Whyte's involved is Crucible. I very much doubt Whyte's involved but I would really like to know who is? Don't you?

 

I think Whyte is involved ? you will have to show me where I said that, which I didn't maybe you confuse me with Alistair Johnston. I do not know whither whyte is involved or not but I lean to the view that he isn't, however I am not willing as you are to risk everything to find out and reopen something put to bed by Pinsent Masons, as highlighted by the poster D'Artagnan.

[Zappa 0]

Well its matter of choice Zap - Id rather base it on that than a set of papers circulated by an unknown person (s) to cause maximum damage to our club.

 

Thing is though mate, that a hell of a lot of the stuff released by that CF twitter account appears to be ligit. As far as anyone can tell, Field Fisher Waterhouse have been getting it all taken down because it's private and confidential documentation, not because it's fake.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Thing is though mate, that a hell of a lot of the stuff released by that CF twitter account appears to be ligit. As far as anyone can tell, Field Fisher Waterhouse have been getting it all taken down because it's private and confidential documentation, not because it's fake.

 

A bit like The Rangers Tax Case Blog ?

[craig 5,198]

A bit like The Rangers Tax Case Blog ?

 

Presumably D'Art you are making the comparison that while RTC had much legitimate information it ultimately failed or, vice Versa, we won ?

 

The difference however between RTC and CF is that the tax case was always going to be based. On interpretation of tax law, so shades of grey in the outcome if you will. With CF if Whyte IS involved it is black or white (pardon the pun).

[Zappa 0]

A bit like The Rangers Tax Case Blog ?

 

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!

[D'Artagnan 173]

Presumably D'Art you are making the comparison that while RTC had much legitimate information it ultimately failed or, vice Vera, we won ?

 

The difference however between RTC and CF is that the tax case was always going to be based. On interpretation of tax law, so shades of grey in the outcome if you will. With CF if Whyte IS involved it is black or white (pardon the pun).

 

More about the motivation behind such leaks Craig - I always look for the motivation in everything.

[amms 0]

I think Whyte is involved ? you will have to show me where I said that, which I didn't maybe you confuse me with Alistair Johnston. I do not know whither whyte is involved or not but I lean to the view that he isn't, however I am not willing as you are to risk everything to find out and reopen something put to bed by Pinsent Masons, as highlighted by the poster D'Artagnan.

 

Well, when you said this...

 

I will leave you and that well known strawman regan to travel the dangerous road, be careful what you wish for, who knows what the end result will be. As long as you are happy with the end result of Murray going over old ground settled by MM's inquiry that will be fine them, whatever the possible outcome is.

 

"We have a legally binding indemnity given to us by the consortium at the time, fronted by Charles Green, Malcolm Murray and Imran Ahmad that Craig Whyte is not involved in any way with Rangers and that was the key requirement which the board needed to have prior to that membership being awarded. We are able to challenge the membership in the event that Craig Whyte is involved."

 

....you make it fairly clear you are worried Craig Whyte is lurking deep in the bowels of Blue Pitch Holdings. Your irrational fear of Stewart Regan has absolutely no basis unless you think Whyte's there and Regan will make good his threat. As I said before Crucible you are all over the place on this subject. You don't know what you believe.