Bendarroch Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 10 posts from Bendy today... KDS: 1 MacGoebbels: 2 IRA: 7 'RA Sulk: 2 Timeous: 1 Terrorists: 1 Still 38 minutes left to top it up, you crazy obsessed bigot. Hi DJ - I'm obsessed, but you count the word content of my posts and the number of posts, too? Patrick Fssl must be proud -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Hi DJ - I'm obsessed, but you count the word content of my posts and the number of posts, too? Patrick Fssl must be proud At least you admit you're obsessed. Strange use of that smilie though. It doesn't fit the content of your post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueone Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Maybe you could look at tedi's new signature where once again the fhud has misinterpreted the quote completely ? Tedi now thinks that a liquidated entity is still the very same entity ??? Tedi's new signature ffs, What a tool Tedi is ffs edut fur typoooo Lol...what a tool! He's been arguing for the last 2 years that Rangers the club were never liquidated ,now he has a judges quote on his sig stating it was?! Must be the thickest c**t on here. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Well forgive me if this doesn't stop me trying to get a rise oot of ye, as futile as that might be. And thanks for asking the sheep, the sheep, the sheep are on fire. I was wondering what the smell of burning wool was. Anyway, I just had a look at recent results and, aye, you're having a nice wee run. Keep beating The 'Tic and you'll lose the 'Abergrheen' moniker - in a generation or two However, if you really want in to the big time you'll need a big time manager. Tell you what, we'll swap you Ally for McInnes. Deal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sesame street had the counting count, P&B has the counting c*nt. One liquidation, two liquidations! Ah ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 One liquidation, two liquidations! Ah ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! LOL...That's you on "the list" BTW 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyWellFan Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 One liquidation, two liquidations! Ah ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) Haud the fuckin' bus, Don. Have you hacked The QC's account? What is this, "a legal entity in Scots law does not still exist after being liquidated" pash and what does it add to the discussion? Entirely relevant in the context of the part of discussion that I was replying too. If you can't be arsed reviewing the previous 2 or 3 pages of thread, in order to get up to speed, well tbh I can't be arsed doing it for you. Yes yes, I know what you were trying to say but I was just wondering a. why you were bothering saying it and b. why you think that a piss-poor argument can be improved by such a supposedly-posh (but sincerely pompous and hollow) phrase such as, "a legal entity in Scots law does not still exist after being liquidated". The gist of the argument is that a club and its associated legal entity are not coterminus. Were it otherwise, most of our clubs would have to redate their history. Therefore, all this bollocks about legal entities existing or disappearing has become some sort of comfort blanket for the Ps&Ds to shield them from the inalienable truth of our continuing existence. Edited to add - for the time being (before anyone else says it) Edited February 27, 2014 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Yes yes, I know what you were trying to say but I was just wondering a. why you were bothering saying it and b. why you think that a piss-poor argument can be improved by such a supposedly-posh (but sincerely pompous and hollow) phrase such as, "a legal entity in Scots law does not still exist after being liquidated". The gist of the argument is that a club and its associated legal entity are not coterminus. Were it otherwise, most of our clubs would have to redate their history. Therefore, all this bollocks about legal entities existing or disappearing has become some sort of comfort blanket for the Ps&Ds to shield them from the inalienable truth of our continuing existence. Edited to add - for the time being (before anyone else says it) Nice and subtle insertion there, T_K. And yes, I agree - it would make a fitting epitaph for yourself. As for continuing existence - you, the rest of the P&B Sleuth, and the Horde in general do indeed continue to exist. The club you built your lives around, unfortunately, does not. Continue to guzzle the Methadone of the Tribute Act all you like, but don't expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to buy into the revisionist claptrap that would have us ignore the catastrophic collapse of the old "institution". Even the rangers' latest "saviour" is treating you and the rest of the berrz with utter contempt - lying bare-faced about his previous dealings with the old club. Yet a sizeable proportion of the support would sacrifice their first-born for the chance to see him pump millions into the black hole that is the ibrox finances. Who cares if the new club dies as well, just as long as THEY don't get ten in a row? And for God's sake, how can "rangers" expect to be losing to the likes of Aberdeen and Hibs*? That would never do - let's have another PO! * Cup draws excepted, I wouldn't give you better than even money that this incarnation will ever play Aberdeen or Hibs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Yes yes, I know what you were trying to say but I was just wondering a. why you were bothering saying it and b. why you think that a piss-poor argument can be improved by such a supposedly-posh (but sincerely pompous and hollow) phrase such as, "a legal entity in Scots law does not still exist after being liquidated". The gist of the argument is that a club and its associated legal entity are not coterminus. Were it otherwise, most of our clubs would have to redate their history. Therefore, all this bollocks about legal entities existing or disappearing has become some sort of comfort blanket for the Ps&Ds to shield them from the inalienable truth of our continuing existence. Edited to add - for the time being (before anyone else says it) "Were it otherwise, most of our clubs would have to redate their history.", do you seriously expect people to believe this arrant nonsense or has bendy hacked your account? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 To be honest if we don't make a stand i think we've only got a year or two left before what little is left is gone. Hi Bennett That is one way to go about it, but I'm not sure that the fans or King have a strong enough hand to play the 'confrontation' game. If you're asking for my opinion (which you probably aren't), from a financial perspective (as far as I've understood it), the subsidiary has the brand, the properties and the onerous running costs. Confrontation may lead to an even quicker 'clearing of the decks' (i.e. the holding company either shifts or secures the remaining assets against the current loan), leaving the club/subsidiary with nothing but the 'brand' and a pile of loss making/onerous contracts. Of course, this could be just my speculation, but it's certainly what I'd be thinking of doing if it were my cash and I was in it for the money. I think 'sabre rattling' is a dangerous game to play just now. Yours aDONis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 "Were it otherwise, most of our clubs would have to redate their history.", do you seriously expect people to believe this arrant nonsense or has bendy hacked your account? I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but dispassionate logic dictates that you have two options: 1. A club and its associated legal entity are coterminus. Thus Rangers died and every other club starts its history from the date of their incorporation. 2. A club and its associated legal entity are not coterminus. Thus the Rangers of 1872 is the same Rangers of 2014 and much digital ink has been spilled with the "yer deid" patter and an Everest of humble pie has to be consumed. Oh you can try the get-out of the brain-dead which goes along the lines of, "Aye, a club can exist before it became a company but if, when incorporated, the company dies then so does the club". Sounds easy, eh? In fact it's a fiction punted about by morons who can't live with the ramifications of their own belief. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Yes yes, I know what you were trying to say but I was just wondering a. why you were bothering saying it and b. why you think that a piss-poor argument can be improved by such a supposedly-posh (but sincerely pompous and hollow) phrase such as, "a legal entity in Scots law does not still exist after being liquidated". The gist of the argument is that a club and its associated legal entity are not coterminus. Were it otherwise, most of our clubs would have to redate their history. Therefore, all this bollocks about legal entities existing or disappearing has become some sort of comfort blanket for the Ps&Ds to shield them from the inalienable truth of our continuing existence. Edited to add - for the time being (before anyone else says it) Awe ffs K! The poster to whom I was replying - I can no longer remember who - had declared in his post that Lord Tyre's comment (in blue in my signature), confirmed that The Rangers now are The Rangers then. I was pointing out to said poster, that as Lord Tyre himself would know, continued existence is not legally possible post liquidation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but dispassionate logic dictates that you have two options: 1. A club and its associated legal entity are coterminus. Thus Rangers died and every other club starts its history from the date of their incorporation. 2. A club and its associated legal entity are not coterminus. Thus the Rangers of 1872 is the same Rangers of 2014 and much digital ink has been spilled with the "yer deid" patter and an Everest of humble pie has to be consumed. Oh you can try the get-out of the brain-dead which goes along the lines of, "Aye, a club can exist before it became a company but if, when incorporated, the company dies then so does the club". Sounds easy, eh? In fact it's a fiction punted about by morons who can't live with the ramifications of their own belief. Which of these clubs were liquidated? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 all this bollocks about legal entities existing or disappearing has become some sort of comfort blanket for the Ps&Ds to shield them from the inalienable truth of our continuing existence. inalienable adjective Definition: protected from being removed or taken away Synonyms: unassailable, inviolable, absolute Antonyms: vulnerable, assailable, unprotected, conditional. "Each door is held in the open position by a suitable friction clutch, which can be instantly released by means of a powerful electro-magnet controlled from the captain's bridge, so that in the event of accident, or at any time when it may be considered advisable, the captain can, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly close the doors throughout and make the vessel practically unsinkable." - White Star Line, 1911 "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." - Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929 "Under this government, Britain will never return to the boom and bust of the past". - Gordon Brown, 1999 "The bad news for Scottish football is this is as bad as it gets for Glasgow Rangers" - Walter Smith, 1998 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but dispassionate logic dictates that you have two options: 1. A club and its associated legal entity are coterminus. Thus Rangers died and every other club starts its history from the date of their incorporation. 2. A club and its associated legal entity are not coterminus. Thus the Rangers of 1872 is the same Rangers of 2014 and much digital ink has been spilled with the "yer deid" patter and an Everest of humble pie has to be consumed. Oh you can try the get-out of the brain-dead which goes along the lines of, "Aye, a club can exist before it became a company but if, when incorporated, the company dies then so does the club". Sounds easy, eh? In fact it's a fiction punted about by morons who can't live with the ramifications of their own belief. You are deluded then, the company I work for is not incorporated. Were it to be incorporated tomorrow it's est. date would not change. You've sunk so far as to make up stuff to associate the team you currently "support" with a bunch of cheats. Edited because I can't spell. Edited February 27, 2014 by aofjays 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Aye The_K you've had a poor innings. Tea? Lemonade? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 "Were it otherwise, most of our clubs would have to redate their history.", do you seriously expect people to believe this arrant nonsense or has bendy hacked your account? I'd also like to see some meat put on the spindly bones of that statement. "Most" would infer 20+ senior clubs, would it not? Typical empty rhetoric from a poster whose output is becoming more risible as the dirty laundry of his proud "institution" gets held up to public ridicule. Defending the indefensible - what a disingeuoune he is. Hmm... My spellchecker doesn't like one of the words in that last statement - I wonder why? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-MAN Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) Can't get on to Twitter at work, but I have read on the Stock Exchange forum that PMG and Dave King are in dialogue on Twitter. Today 12:39 JupiterFX Dave King responds to PMG 29.25 Strong Sell PMG and Dave King are currently in dialogue on twitter. DK's responses are insightful. Anyone fancy going in and pasting on here ?. Cheers Edited February 27, 2014 by G-MAN 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.