The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Your quote was first coined in the SPL commission circa 2012I very-much doubt that it was. I'd go as far as to say this: If you find "the SPL commission circa 2012" saying "A club's existence is not coterminous with its associated PLC." then not only will I sook Neil Lennon's boaby but add his smegma to a ham, cheese and mushroom omlette and post pics of me eating it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 AWRA Banhammered pleasing indeed . I wonder what the next alias the chump will return on will be ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I very-much doubt that it was. I'd go as far as to say this: If you find "the SPL commission circa 2012" saying "A club's existence is not coterminous with its associated PLC." then not only will I sook Neil Lennon's boaby but add his smegma to a ham, cheese and mushroom omlette and post pics of me eating it. In the early part of 2012, Rangers were a Football Club. What the feck has that to do with now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 And on a day like this, you go to the swamp and see that old bigot, the scumball Sam_Cooke giving it this... orange bigot...should be prosecuted.....jpg Not giving a hoot when his new club goes down the shitter as long as he can be a bile filled Orangeman 'Tards, the lotta them. I get a bit worried when I think about what these idiots will do with all their free time once their team nosedives again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I get a bit worried when I think about what these idiots will do with all their free time once their team nosedives again.Acht maybe they'll follow the example of the P&B diddies and spend their time posting about Rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I get a bit worried when I think about what these idiots will do with all their free time once their team nosedives again. There is better....... I hope I don't blow this deep cover boy.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Acht maybe they'll follow the example of the P&B diddies and spend their time posting about Rangers Anything to keep them off the streets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 AWRA Banhammered pleasing indeed . I wonder what the next alias the chump will return on will be ? What was his latest guise and how can you tell he's been banned and why? I've never understood this side of things on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Another year at least of laughter at the diddies Secret recordings released by the anonymous @CharlotteFakes Twitter account can be given in evidence in a £28m legal action brought by the liquidators of Oldco Rangers against Craig Whyte’s former lawyers, a judge ruled today.The suit against Collyer Bristow centres on claims that the legal firm, which acted for former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, is partially responsible for the subsequent administration and liquidation of the company and is alleged to have been involved in conspiracy, negligence and breach of trust.Collyer Bristow denies the accusations and suggests all it did was assist its client in a normal "leveraged takeover".The "Charlotte" material in question consists of voice recordings involving Whyte and others involved in the takeover. Cyril Kinsky QC, for Collyer Bristow, told the pre-trial hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice that much of the media had decided that the material "may have been unlawfully obtained" and that in a "post-Leveson world the press are not as fulsome as they were in the past."However the QC showed the court postings from football blogs and other "chatter on the web" discussing the recordings and argued that this consisted of publication and therefore confidentiality was lost.Responding for the claimants, Mark Phillips QC told the judge that police objections to using the material had been dropped on 13 February and that Craig Whyte himself had emailed stating he had no issue with the tapes being used in evidence.Phillips did argue that that tape transcripts should be partially redacted to remove any references to confidential legal advice given to Whyte as this was covered by privilege. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Newey, agreed that the material was relevant and admissible and ordered that an edited transcript of the recordings be made available to the court.In the wake of the judge's decision, questions were already being asked if it would lead to a change of attitude by the Scottish media to the "Charlotte" revelations which they have been so far reluctant to publish. Alex Thomson, chief correspondent for Channel 4 News, tweeted: "So - finally some of the Charlotte Fakes material may be legally published by the MSM."The full trial is due to begin in January 2015 with Cohen & Stephen (the liquidators of Rangers 2012), Trustees of the Jerome Group plc Pension Fund and HMRC all expected to be represented in court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 What was his latest guise and how can you tell he's been banned and why? I've never understood this side of things on here. The Hammer's been hammered. It's obvious it's him every time he comes back. The guy's a semi-illiterate moron and stands out a mile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 What was his latest guise and how can you tell he's been banned and why? I've never understood this side of things on here. He is on a hotline to Keef on his hols........ie the forum_suggestions page..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Did the BRALT make an appearance in court today? I demand to know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 The Hammer's been hammered. It's obvious it's him every time he comes back. The guy's a semi-illiterate moron and stands out a mile. He is and he does. The amusing thing about today is that he got at least 50 bites from his tawdry pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Did the BRALT make an appearance in court today? I demand to know. I heard they did but claimed a bigger BRALT did it and ran away. Why do you ask? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 He is and he does. The amusing thing about today is that he got at least 50 bites from his tawdry pish. He also got Bennett's full and unwavering support. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 You can't use Lord Nimmo as a legal fact that can be used in a court of law. Amazing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Joyous Only thing that can save them is another Wonga-Ahmed short term loan :D and they need it in place in 6 days Even if they swing it, the outcome is the same....they are potless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Amazing. ???? Brother Smith gave an interpretation of the Law.....HIS interpretation. It wasn't the''Law''...................... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 associations rules & regulations on what nowadays to the association what constitutes to them is a club, and feck all to do with anything remotely legal or lawful in a court of law. WTF Hellish - yer a fucking head case! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I very-much doubt that it was. I'd go as far as to say this: If you find "the SPL commission circa 2012" saying "A club's existence is not coterminous with its associated PLC." then not only will I sook Neil Lennon's boaby but add his smegma to a ham, cheese and mushroom omlette and post pics of me eating it. I do look forward to you sooking on Lennon's boaby Kinky I have noticed that the now SPFL have removed "SPL Commission reasons for decision of 12 September 2012.pdf" from their archives Kinky and to what reason I have no clue other than to extinguish it from the annals of history and is a piss poor attempt to sweep it under the carpet. Anyhoo I do have a PDF copy on my PC for such an occasion as this. In article [46] it says this about a club existing outside it's legal entity ie it's relevant PLC it was associated with. In common speech a club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite it's transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of it's owner and operator. ^ ^ ^ That surely reeks of the club existing without it's associated PLC doesn't it Kinky although not worded as you would like it. But was the crux of of the club existing outside being a PLC company. 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.