bennett Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The same can be said for the role reversal , their are countless other court proceedings which have had statements made or words arguin the notion rangers are still the same club , these seem to be ignored by the obsessives on here though Even stoney can't think that this hearing was about old cub and new club lol, more to do with the general trying to claim the SFA has no jurisdiction over the holding company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 https://lefthooked.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/rangers-a-parable/ The parable is flawed. The product which was award winning was the pies. The pies have f**k all to do with the café, the pies won the titles. Go rewrite it with the café owner making his own pies then a new owner coming in with a new recipe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 https://lefthooked.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/rangers-a-parable/ WordPress lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Even stoney can't think that this hearing was about old cub and new club lol, more to do with the general trying to claim the SFA has no jurisdiction over the holding company. That is true but it is the reasons behind the claims and the judges views on these which show the new club/old club truth. Collateral damage for you guys, the answers to a three year debate are about to arrive. Thanks to Mike the hero. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Did some blogger tell you that? Think for yourself stoney, think for yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The diddies getting to the tickly bit over this , they truly are a desperate bunch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The diddies getting to the tickly bit over this , they truly are a desperate bunch Not really, we just like Judges constantly pishing over this mysterious, concept, idea entity club thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Not really, we just like Judges constantly pishing over this mysterious, concept, idea entity club thing.^^^^ hitting the vinegar stroke We welcome the aberdonian chase Edited February 5, 2016 by forever_blue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Did some blogger tell you that? Think for yourself stoney, think for yourself. Is that the party line after your wee PM conference? No bloggers needed to tell me that, I actually thought that the proof would never surface. I thought these issues would never be raised in a court of law due to the fact that all of the parties involved wanted the illusion of continuation to perpetuate. Thank f**k for Mike the hero getting a shitty on and taking it out on Rangers otherwise you lot could still go on about 54 and counting. Counter has been reset. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Is that the party line after your wee PM conference? No bloggers needed to tell me that, I actually thought that the proof would never surface. I thought these issues would never be raised in a court of law due to the fact that all of the parties involved wanted the illusion of continuation to perpetuate. Thank f**k for Mike the hero getting a shitty on and taking it out on Rangers otherwise you lot could still go on about 54 and counting. Counter has been reset. 54 and counting stoney 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Is that the party line after your wee PM conference? No bloggers needed to tell me that, I actually thought that the proof would never surface. I thought these issues would never be raised in a court of law due to the fact that all of the parties involved wanted the illusion of continuation to perpetuate. Thank f**k for Mike the hero getting a shitty on and taking it out on Rangers otherwise you lot could still go on about 54 and counting. Counter has been reset. Cringeworthy attempt at fishing stoney, tone it down a bit next time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 They all do, unbelievable but it is obviously true, you could tell when they were asking Rangers fans to comment on today's news, when in fact in reality the Judge basically said let me get back to you, there wasn't any real news. The actual court case....unfortunately today all we have is Doleman`s commentary on it, it was clear yesterday that he was leaving out the bits his paying audience would not be interested in, alongside adding his own spin to the parts they pay for. Fortunately we had STV grant filling in the blanks, comparing the two twitter feeds was hilarious. Today however with no Grant he could omit / filter / spin it all to his hearts content. What I did pick out was that Ashley`s QC spent a lot of time trying to make out that Fat Mike did not influence things at Rangers because he had nothing to do with Derek`s appointment, MASH did all that, someone will have to tell me what MASH stands for and who owns and runs it, because I could have sworn it was Mike Ashley. He also stated that Stock Market announcements are not checked by the stock market before announcement, clearly suggesting that the information within the announcement 'MASH nominating Derek' could be made up....is he therefore suggesting Sommers lied to the stock market? It did not help that Derek himself was the press contact on that same announcement, talk about dropping him in it.. After all that, you think the last thing he would do would be to question the rule itself, after all he spent the past 2 days arguing that it did not apply to him for other reasons....but no, at the end he stated that Rangers and Newcastle were not even in the same association, never mind the same league, thereby implying that dual ownership would not matter, so what happens if they meet in Europe? or how about sorting out some loan deals between the two clubs?, obviously he does understand what the rule is for and this kinda undid his entire argument. Going by Doleman`s twitter the SFA QC sounded completely inept and the Judge seemed irritated by him. Tedi handing out a few telts again We welcome the chase 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) Ahh ..TEDIs rascit heros party line on Doleman....funny how STVGrant backs Doleman up when ever anyone questions him? Edited February 6, 2016 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 We welcome the chaseAs long as its not for debt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Did some blogger tell you that? Think for yourself stoney, think for yourself. Rangers fan tells diddy fan to think for himself. Anyone else hearing the Twilight Zone theme music? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Tedi handing out a few telts again We welcome the chase Aye. I am still waiting for him to tell me why if mash is mike (he is the only shareholder) then how are rfc and rfic not the same. He also missed out the fact that the SFA gave mash permission for the shareholding as long as they did not have board influence. Therefore the need to show if DL was appointed at the behest of MASH. I am sure the emails instructing RIFC will be produced to show that this was the case. I know you wouldn't hold Rangers and Spiers to different levels of proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Tedi handing out a few telts again We welcome the chase The man who had to be told what the 5 self awarded stars on his own team's shirt signified is not capable of dishing out telts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 But but but, why should the supporters of mash holdings be punished for the actions of one man? Unbelievable people want to kick them while they are down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Loads of 'telt' minions protesting otherwise.....like celtic fans, it doesn't wash guys. 5 star retort there Tedi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Tedi handing out a few telts again We welcome the chase Please highlight these 'telts'. You do realise that, while we will have to wait for the decision on the case between Ashley and the SFA, the collateral damage was much more entertaining? Even if Doleman was being selective in his reporting, and I've no doubt he is, what he reported must be worrying for Rangers fans. We're never going to see a court case explicitly asking and answering the question of ''new Rangers or not?' but the fall-out from this case and the upcoming Green and Whyte trials is going to answer it to most people's satisfaction. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.