Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

I know that the Club's now apparently resident bus magnet Sandy Easdale called Craig Whyte "mad" and claimed that he would "personally throw him down the marble staircase if he ever turned up at Ibrox", but could Whyte's alleged legal claim on the assets prevent them being used as any sort of security at the moment?

 

Also, Sandy Easdale claimed that he had "never met or spoke to" Craig Whyte, but is that actually true?

 

A poster on Twitter said that even issuing a letter of intent to sue about ownership of the assets would be sufficient to put legal obstacles in the way of granting a charge over Ibrox / MP. I don't know if that's correct, but I asked the guy how long a letter of intent was valid for without actually following it up and he had no idea, so he may be no better informed than I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stayed off here for long periods on that sort of basis and probably will again soon but are you basically wanting a place where everyone agrees? It's not like i'm starting Charles Green tribute threads, other people mention him and I just give my own views.

 

But i'm sure i'll drift away again soon.

 

Please continue to say what you think. It's healthy to have someone challenge the orthodox view and whether I agree with you or not, you make your points in a reasoned and non-confrontational way, so I see you as a valued contributor to Gersnet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A poster on Twitter said that even issuing a letter of intent to sue about ownership of the assets would be sufficient to put legal obstacles in the way of granting a charge over Ibrox / MP. I don't know if that's correct, but I asked the guy how long a letter of intent was valid for without actually following it up and he had no idea, so he may be no better informed than I am.

 

It was something along these lines that made me ask the question. Well actually, it was the fact that it was mentioned in the accounts released at the end of September which made me wonder about it. It's no doubt just a technicality though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was something along these lines that made me ask the question. Well actually, it was the fact that it was mentioned in the accounts released at the end of September which made me wonder about it. It's no doubt just a technicality though.

 

One for the legal eagles out there to opine on.

 

However, I do find it hard to imagine that a plaintiff can simply lodge a letter of intent to sue and without any court involvement, the defender's assets can't be sold or used as collateral indefinitely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.