oregonbud Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Yawnn.. get to bed then theres a game to go to tomorrow.....tadge yes im 8 hrs behind you lot so its saturday already Edited July 21, 2012 by oregonbud 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Am I right in thinking I read last night that East Fife were the lowest of the seeds that Sevco could have drawn? Ie the (on paper) easiest tie possible for them? Or did I dream it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregonbud Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 sorry to bust yer paranoia but im a bud born and bred been following saints since the 70,s so get to bed and go to greenock today and watch as the buds pick up the first trophy of the season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 You're just becoming a troll now - do something useful and tell me where Chas went on Tuesday & not back - or pontificate with me why the major partner in Blue Pitch Holdings is based in Geneva - which country did Chas go to and UEFA publicly saying they've never seen anyone from Sevco. Quote from the comments on RTC last night............. Wee question for you all: what do Charles Green, Craig Whyte, Dave King and Andrew Ellis all have in common? That’s right they all own property and have investments in the Republic of South Africa. What a coincidence, eh? What’s that I hear? You would like another coincidence? Well, okay, how about they have all at various times threatened to sue each other and other players in this farce but curiously not a single writ has been delivered. Ask your uncle Max (Clifford) about that little deflection trick… Another coincidence? How about they were all in Switzerland this week? As my grandson’s favourite comedian would say “what are the chances of that?” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 In whoms eyes... SFL presumably. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregonbud Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 look at all those.... renfrewshire cup ???? hmmmmm no posts in b&w army...no desire to see saints lift a trophy.....smells like not a true bud???? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Pot to piss in springs to mind... A quick google and yep, East Fife were top unseeded team until Sevco went into Div3 which moved them up one place ie they became the bottom seed side. So it was the easiest tie (on paper) possible for them to get, and at home to, Whats that, about a 30/1 shot? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregonbud Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Yeah ive been hiding behind this sudo disguise since 2010 what an act... Oh an b&w army suck balls to this forum.. but im on the fishil site forum... Incognito mind.... yea so am i but it sucks too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregonbud Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) anyways as zebideee once said time for bed some of us have to sleep,and get up in the morning to follow the game online.COYS Edited July 21, 2012 by oregonbud 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregonbud Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 who are you ?: duh.....oregonbud 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlesgreen Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Can I clarify. Still no permission to play any matches ? Hawick today off ? Cambuslang Tuesday and Kelty Wednesday still under threat ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Pardon this possibly obvious question..... If Green has bought the assets (ground and club) and most of the expensive players have fecked off - What is left for the liquidators to liquidate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Has he gone to bed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 If that's the case then am I right in thinking that if Charles Greens decided to rename 'newco' as Third Lanark rather than 'The Rangers', then Third Lanak would take over Rangers history ? Sorry, I'm afraid I can't share your preoccupation with history. As far as I'm concerned the whole concept of owning history is a nonsense. Things happened in the past, that's a matter of record. Whether you think this new team should take credit/shame for those things is a matter of personal perception. I personally don't think this new club can take credit for the old club's trophies but I won't be losing any sleep if someone else think otherwise. I do find it a little peculiar that there are so many people stating both that Rangers are dead and finished while at the same time arguing that this new club should be punished for their sins. That's quite an exercise in double-think. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Rangers are Dead/ Dead Spawny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Pardon this possibly obvious question..... If Green has bought the assets (ground and club) and most of the expensive players have fecked off - What is left for the liquidators to liquidate? The liquidators are there to wind up the company and to investigate whether anyone involved in the previous regimes should be held personally liable for the debts and/or face criminal charges. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I do find it a little peculiar that there are so many people stating both that Rangers are dead and finished while at the same time arguing that this new club should be punished for their sins. That's quite an exercise in double-think. Yes, but equally, it requires double think to see the debt ditched, yet the honours retained. What's been produced is a sort of compromise that I can just about live with, so long as the double contract thing is now pursued and titles removed. I differ from you in that I genuinely want to see Rangers destroyed and pounded into the dust. I think it would be good for our football and even better for our society. The only reservation I have is that if killed off altogether, then the danger of them killing and hijacking another club is real. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I thinkso... That made me laugh, but seriously mate, nip back and do some deleting. You've written this book's worst chapter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 1342856246[/url]' post='6452152']The liquidators are there to wind up the company and to investigate whether anyone involved in the previous regimes should be held personally liable for the debts and/or face criminal charges. Thanks - do those two have to happen in a specific order? Can't they just liquidate them now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Stramash Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Is this now 'The wisbit Thread'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Where are you getting this "bought/sold as a going concern" cobblers you keep repeating from? That's exactly what DIDN'T happen. It's what WOULD have happened if the CVA was successful, but it wasn't. What Green bought was the assets of a failed company which is being wound up by liquidators, which he plans to use to create an entirely new business. Not the same thing at all. Sorry you're talking bollocks. The old company is dead but the business continues. That's why TUPE applied. Rangers (a football business, running from particular premises, carrying out a particular type work, with a particular brand and particular set of customers) are the undertaking. That business undertaking was sold by the administrators to Green to allow Green to continue that undertaking. Those exact circumstances are one of the exceptions to the prohibition on reusing company names/trading names. Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 4.228.—(1) Where a company (“the successor company”) acquires the whole, or substantially the whole, of the business of an insolvent company, under arrangements made by an insolvency practitioner acting as its liquidator, administrator or administrative receiver, or as supervisor of a voluntary arrangement under Part I of the Act, the successor company may for the purposes of section 216 give notice under this Rule to the insolvent company's creditors.(2) To be effective, the notice must be given within 28 days from the completion of the arrangements, to all creditors of the insolvent company of whose addresses the successor company is aware in that period; and it must specify— (a)the name and registered number of the insolvent company and the circumstances in which its business has been acquired by the successor company, (b)the name which the successor company has assumed, or proposes to assume for the purpose of carrying on the business, if that name is or will be a prohibited name under section 216, and ©any change of name which it has made, or proposes to make, for that purpose under section 28 of the Companies Act. (3) The notice may name a person to whom section 216 may apply as having been a director or shadow director of the insolvent company, and give particulars as to the nature and duration of that directorship, with a view to his being a director of the successor company or being otherwise associated with its management. (4) If the successor company has effectively given notice under this Rule to the insolvent company's creditors, a person who is so named in the notice may act in relation to the successor company in any of the ways mentioned in section 216(3), notwithstanding that he has not the leave of the court under that section. I can break that down and explain it to you further if you're still struggling. 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.