BlueMazza 0 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 I find the Duff & Phelps bit really interesting. For me, that's the bit that ties it all together and shows the [alleged] conspiracy. I remember when Whyte plunged us in to admin & got Duff & Phelps agreed, everyone thought it was a little odd. This case is going to be illuminating & aggravating. Hopefully it is also going to vindicate us - the fans. We said all along we've been victims of a crime (OK, indirectly, but we talk about the club as We) and we've been punished, ridiculed and shamed by many. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,258 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 According to this zoomer we should be hoping for the opposite (WARNING: tim blog, you'll need a strong stomach): http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/sevco-face-being-gavelled-out-of-existence/ How many times do these people need to be proved wrong before the penny drops? They seem to think they're all tax, financial & legal experts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 They are not normal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 According to this zoomer we should be hoping for the opposite (WARNING: tim blog, you'll need a strong stomach): http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/sevco-face-being-gavelled-out-of-existence/ Another example of a deluded halfwit who feeds on rumour and conjecture from other doppelgangers who have no real interest in football. Not one of them could find a stadium using a sat-nav. It is hatred, pure and simple. You would think that after Phil Whatshisnametoday made his monumental mistakes they would learn. I have a feeling they won't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Charles Green case in court today .... at 10am in the Court of Session. Case CA196/16. Charles Green v Rangers International Football Club plc. The "debate" in this case takes place tomorrow in front of Lord Doherty. I am not a litigation solicitor but I believe the debate is where only legal issues are considered and no evidence is lead. From memory it is based on written pleadings. The judge (again) is ... What are the bets that he'll rule that we have to pay for Green's costs "according to the contracts he whipped up essentially by himself"? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,165 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 He certainly looks like a tim and has a declared interest of a shareholding in the company of the dire but fair play to the man, he upheld the FTT ruling. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chibmark 15 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 From the Scottish Catholic Observer, the esteemed Lord Drummond Young no less. http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/12774/cardinal-o%E2%80%99brien-presents-papal-knighthood-at-red-mass/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 From the Scottish Catholic Observer, the esteemed Lord Drummond Young no less. http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/12774/cardinal-o%E2%80%99brien-presents-papal-knighthood-at-red-mass/ my god how much wrong can you cram into one article horrendous. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Charles Green case in court today The judge (again) is ... What are the bets that he'll rule that we have to pay for Green's costs "according to the contracts he whipped up essentially by himself"? was it not Lord Doherty that found in our favour at the UTT? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Grant Russell @STVGrant 26 secs26 seconds ago RIFC now arguing that Sevco Scotland "acquired The Rangers Football Club", which it owns and operates. Making club v company distinction. Grant Russell @STVGrant 26s26 seconds ago Lord Doherty counters that you can't have a contact with "The Rangers Football Club". Grant Russell @STVGrant 3 mins3 minutes ago Lord Doherty: "How would you define the club in legal terms?" Grant Russell @STVGrant 2 mins2 minutes ago RIFC: It is an association football club which has a continued existence, regardless of entities which come to own it from time to time. Grant Russell @STVGrant 4 mins4 minutes ago Point of club v company debate to draw clear dates in timeline when Green was chairman of "club" and chair of "company" Grant Russell @STVGrant 2 mins2 minutes ago In the clause, what did the parties mean by chief executive of Rangers FC? CG only became that at point of acquisition of club by Sevco Grant Russell @STVGrant 1 min1 minute ago RIFC: It does not follow that the club should indemnify CG for alleged actions for when he was merely director of Sevco Scotland. Grant Russell @STVGrant 1 min1 minute ago RIFC: Approaching words used in correct context, indemnity only should run from June 2012 at point of acquisition. James Doleman @jamesdoleman Judge notes that Sevco Scotland became a wholly owned subsidiary of RIFC so the indemnity could be argued to apply before club was bought. 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.