~~~ Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) "@MissLisaGray: A crowd of 11,492 at Hampden today. #QPFC v #RFC" Another world record? Edited April 7, 2013 by Enrico Annoni 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Following on from my last post above, I asked a few questions last night that I don't think anyone has addressed yet (maybe no-one is able to add anything). These are the type of things that people should be looking at and the type of answers that people should be looking for. I wouldn't say this is taking anyone "at face value". Green's Statement on Rangers website yesterday:- “In a discussion with Mr Whyte, who taped some conversations, I am alleged to have said: ‘You are Sevco, that’s what we are saying. “This is correct but at that point I had signed a resignation letter and a stock transfer form because it was decided that a Scottish company should buy a Scottish institution. Sevco 5088 wasn’t required. STV News article 27 June 2012:- A spokesman for Rangers confirmed that there had been a transfer of assets between one newco and a second separate newco. He told STV: "For the avoidance of doubt, Sevco 5088 Limited bought the assets of the Rangers Football Club and then transferred them to Sevco Scotland Limited so that all the assets would be in the Scottish registered company that is Rangers FC." http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/108240-rangers-crisis-ibrox-and-murray-park-hived-off-to-separate-newco/ Which Rangers statement is correct? Which Rangers statemtent is incorrect? Extracts from the CVA Proposal: 4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (Sevco) to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares. 4.19 Consequently, on 12 May 2012, the Joint Administrators agreed and signed an offer letter with Sevco (the Offer Letter) and granted Sevco exclusivity to complete a takeover of the Company or a purchase of the Company‘s business and assets by 30 July 2012. Sevco made a payment of £200,000 to the Company for such exclusivity. 4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential. No mention of "Sevco Scotland". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Memo to Norman.. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. I know. Maybe you should tell Pelucia. f**k me, tries to defend his stupid wee mate, and scores a fucking belter into his own net. Cheers, Bennett, you two are going a long way to ease the pain of yesterday's results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Will Green allow fat Sal to sign any "darkies" or "pakis"?!?! I see got rid o that spick Sandaza! I recall a few posters accusing me of being racist a while back, over my use of an old nickname we had for A*r. Now that the CEO of this "institution" feels it appropriate to use the same epithet, albeit related to skin colour rather than personal hygiene, should I expect any apologies? Nah, 'sdifferent, innit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 This thread must be approaching a world record for the most posts ending in 'deal with it' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 The wiki article says what it does, just because the WKR disagrees with it does not make the WKR correct, deal with it. Pelucis, I could help you out here and repeat my advice to you on many occasions before - "Check with different sources before stating anything as fact". However, I'm happy to allow you to tailor your words to make yourself look less stupid. "Total" titles now, is it? Well, at any time over the last couple of days you could have made that clear, and that would have been the end of the matter. You didn't, so hang on to the shovel, and keep digging. Don't forget to thank Bennett for his well-meant disaster of a back-up, as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Charles Green admits to being a racist in a desperate attempt to get folk to concentrate on that instead folk just concentrate on both 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 My point still stands though, Stirling Albion are a club with no ambition, sorry if this upsets you. Enjoy your day And we've all seen what an excess of ambition did for your old club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 HAHA ally its your first title not the 11th with your current club.thick cvnt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 The wiki article says what it does, just because the WKR disagrees with it does not make the WKR correct, deal with it. Pelucia, try this link. I fear you may have been led to some kind of phoney wikipedia which only contains one article. The one I use has all sorts of entries, in all different languages. Then you could try some of these: http://www.portugoal.net/index.php/portuguese-liga/history http://www.portugal-soccer.com/f-c-porto-statistics/ http://www.rsssf.com/tablesp/portchamp.html Or, if you really want to put your faith in Wikipedia, try here. A few inconsistencies probably appear here and there, but most of them point to the 32/29 numbers I posted earlier. Your figures would have them winning almost 1.4 titles a year between them. HTH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 HAHA ally its your first title not the 11th with your current club.thick cvnt He didn't really know what to say when Chuckie had ripped the pish outta his troops, because it is the worse team and the best team they have ever had. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 This thread must be approaching a world record for the most posts ending in 'deal with it' Deal with it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I know. Maybe you should tell Pelucia. f**k me, tries to defend his stupid wee mate, and scores a fucking belter into his own net. Cheers, Bennett, you two are going a long way to ease the pain of yesterday's results. Did you lot not scud Hibs? Not really keeping up with SPL results these days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Just a wee reminder, Craig Whyte looks to have been profiting from Rangers fans since buying the club for a quid. I admire your mettle Rangers fans, you go save your club now. No wonder Whyte has such a big grin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Rebel. Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Regarding Barry's post about Sevco,this has bigger consequences than many think,it means that the zombies may have won SFA this season. It may mean UEFA may look into the shambles and more trouble for poor old Chucles and co. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 As regards the Green/Whyte stuff, weren't those discussions before the CVA proposal decision? Then, when the CVA proposal was knocked back, things changed (Whyte's shares weren't required, for one thing)? (Just asking!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Have i got this right?....The diddies are now claiming craig whyte is to be trusted and taken at face value? Bwahahahahaha. They really are desperate Can't recall any of us diddies claiming Craig Whyte is to be trusted. I think most of us are pointing out that putting any trust in Charles Green is dubious. He's clearly been "economical" with the truth, has previous at Sheffield United, has a string of closed companies behind him and has taken money from Craig Whyte. I simply cannot understand why he is getting such an easy time of it from Rangers supporters, especially after what he did to another club. He's already claimed he's only in it for the money which in my mind is not too different to Craig Whyte's attitude to your club. After everything that's happened to Rangers in the last couple of years it seems incredible that a single supporter could fall for another Messiah routine. There's something rotten at the core of Ibrox and the supporters should be demanding answers. And not from Craig Whyte, but from the Messiah himself, Charles Green. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 As regards the Green/Whyte stuff, weren't those discussions before the CVA proposal decision? Then, when the CVA proposal was knocked back, things changed (Whyte's shares weren't required, for one thing)? (Just asking!) See my posts below, particularly the bits in red. The CVA proposal is very specific on what parties were involved in discussions. Maybe there is something that supersedes this or another reasonable explanation, but there is certainly a question hanging over the whole thing that needs answered. Green's Statement on Rangers website yesterday:- “In a discussion with Mr Whyte, who taped some conversations, I am alleged to have said: ‘You are Sevco, that’s what we are saying. “This is correct but at that point I had signed a resignation letter and a stock transfer form because it was decided that a Scottish company should buy a Scottish institution. Sevco 5088 wasn’t required. STV News article 27 June 2012:- A spokesman for Rangers confirmed that there had been a transfer of assets between one newco and a second separate newco. He told STV: "For the avoidance of doubt, Sevco 5088 Limited bought the assets of the Rangers Football Club and then transferred them to Sevco Scotland Limited so that all the assets would be in the Scottish registered company that is Rangers FC." http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/108240-rangers-crisis-ibrox-and-murray-park-hived-off-to-separate-newco/ Which Rangers statement is correct? Which Rangers statemtent is incorrect? Extracts from the CVA Proposal: 4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (Sevco) to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares. 4.19 Consequently, on 12 May 2012, the Joint Administrators agreed and signed an offer letter with Sevco (the Offer Letter) and granted Sevco exclusivity to complete a takeover of the Company or a purchase of the Company‘s business and assets by 30 July 2012. Sevco made a payment of £200,000 to the Company for such exclusivity. 4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential. No mention of "Sevco Scotland". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 As regards the "Sevco" stuff, the decision of Lord Nimmo Smith et al about payments to players says: 'On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators. The name of Sevco Scotland Limited was subsequent ly changed to The Rangers Football Club Limited. We shall refer to this company as Newco'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) See my posts below, particularly the bits in red. The CVA proposal is very specific on what parties were involved in discussions. Maybe there is something that supersedes this or another reasonable explanation, but there is certainly a question hanging over the whole thing that needs answered. As regards the "Sevco" stuff, the decision of Lord Nimmo Smith et al about payments to players says: 'On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators. The name of Sevco Scotland Limited was subsequent ly changed to The Rangers Football Club Limited. We shall refer to this company as Newco'. All this could be cleared up if the right questions were asked to the right person and they gave a straight answer. Yet we're months down the line, and there's still no clarity about what has gone on. Something is clearly not right. Edited April 7, 2013 by lodmoorhill 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.