johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 James Doleman @jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes agoBrown. "I realise that Rangers being the same club is a matter of life and death to some," Havin ago at tedi now, not on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Genuine question - why do people call you Vicky? sjc's boat thread http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/202591-sjcs-boat-thread/page-12?hl=%2Bvicky+%2Bthe+%2Bviking#entry7446204 Bennett outed by mods using an alias and did an Olympic Gold ' Heads Gone' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) CG lawyer: It's a leap, in the interest of continuity, that the parties in this contract did not intend to be involved in the act carrried on Edited November 12, 2015 by johnnyc13 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Am I only who is surprised that the club / company issue is being debated so much....am I being thick in thinking that the issue should be if green had a clause in his contract insuring his legal costs and when that period of cover was meant to start? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 @jamesdolemanBrown says Rangers was "a basket of assets that could be sold," but these were not indivisible. Brown "What is the players went one way and the ground another, where is the "club" then.?Brown. "I realise that Rangers being the same club is a matter of life and death to some,"James: Wouldn't be a proper legal case without "the elephant in the room" getting mentioned 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Grant 4m4 minutes agoCG lawyer: One is trying to find out what the parties meant by Rangers Football Club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Am I only who is surprised that the club / company issue is being debated so much....am I being thick in thinking that the issue should be if green had a clause in his contract insuring his legal costs and when that period of cover was meant to start? Some of the offences relate to before d and P sold Rangers to them and he was a director of sevco, not Rangers football club... My non expert layman's view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I have absolutely no idea what's going on anymore. This. What the actual f'ck is happening now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Grant Russell @STVGrant 17m17 minutes agoCG lawyer: Difference between Rangers and Woolworths... Any Newco of Woolworths would have bought the undertaking. Not the personality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Some of the offences relate to before d and P sold Rangers to them and he was a director of sevco, not Rangers football club... My non expert layman's view. Would the contract clause not have a start date for when this legal insurance cover thingy came into effect? Is it not a simple case of cover starts on x date and anything before that is down to green? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Would the contract clause not have a start date for when this legal insurance cover thingy came into effect? Is it not a simple case of cover starts on x date and anything before that is down to green? One of the tweets said the contract showed it was backdated to the 1st June 2012 - which I guess would be when it would start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Would the contract clause not have a start date for when this legal insurance cover thingy came into effect? Is it not a simple case of cover starts on x date and anything before that is down to green? Sure I read a tweet saying it was backdated, Rfc QC saying that can't happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Would the contract clause not have a start date for when this legal insurance cover thingy came into effect? Is it not a simple case of cover starts on x date and anything before that is down to green? "A simple case"... Dear me, you've not been keeping up with these loons, have you? Don't worry, Tedi will be along soon to tell us what the real story is. Expect many references to the ASA and UEFA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Sure I read a tweet saying it was backdated, Rfc QC saying that can't happen. RFC or RIFC or RFC(2012) or RFC(IL)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adundeemonkey Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Am I only who is surprised that the club / company issue is being debated so much....am I being thick in thinking that the issue should be if green had a clause in his contract insuring his legal costs and when that period of cover was meant to start? I think what they are trying to clear up is that Green has cover for his time with the company and that there is no such thing as a club in this instance. RIFC are trying to say his claim is for time before he was an executive of the 'club', but Chuck's lawyer is saying that it is his time as executive with Sevco that is what counts, as Sevco simply bought up the Rangers assets then changed Sevco's name to Rangers, rather than Sevco buying Rangers assets then ceasing to exist leaving behind the Rangers assets which is what RIFC are claiming. To put simply Green says Sevco bought assets, continued as Sevco. RIFC says Sevco bought Rangers, Green then became exec of Rangers and Sevco vanished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 RFC or RIFC or RFC(2012) or RFC(IL)? Best ask a sellick fan Norm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 "A simple case"... Dear me, you've not been keeping up with these loons, have you? Don't worry, Tedi will be along soon to tell us what the real story is. Expect many references to the ASA and UEFA. Fivestarts is too busy dotting Vickys drivel... Im sure he will be along soon.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 "A simple case"...Dear me, you've not been keeping up with these loons, have you? Don't worry, Tedi will be along soon to tell us what the real story is. Expect many references to the ASA and UEFA.[/quote Lol I just thought there might be one tiny aspect of this utter farce which could be boiled down to a simple black n white (no pun intended) fact....also why is there no one called pink involved....we need the full reservoir dogs team on this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Sure I read a tweet saying it was backdated, Rfc QC saying that can't happen.[/quote Ah ok see why they are arguing now cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 This. What the actual f'ck is happening now? not entirely sure, but i think many law firms are getting rich and the court is deciding who the bill should be sent to. Plus the outcome may reflect the way other cases may go in who is paying for what in the maelstrom of court hearings etc that are coming up. Not entirely sure how all this works in high brow legal terms, but i suspect the legal companies are covered by insurance, If CG wins surely he will claim for loss of earnings etc. The tin hat side of myself says everyone wins except the punter sitting there in his blue red and white scarf munching his over priced pie whispering to himself that his club are the most successful club ever... 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.