GreenockRover Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 When Pete Townsend wrote 'Won't Get Fooled Again' he forget to add, 'except all thick h uns' Tuuuuunnnneeee!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I think the Yorkshire ripper seen an opportunity to rip off Whyte mibees,but didn't even think Whyte recorded everything to come back and bite him on the bum. Thats no way to talk about WKR, now is it? As his mother said, he's such a shy boy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I must say I'm shocked to find that the man who claimed to be linking The Rangers up with the Dallas Cowboys might be a teller of tall tales. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Wonder why Greenock Rover deleted that post? Wasn't too bad considering his usual standard... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I did see that thread, my name was never mentioned, however the general consenus on FF was that P & B was a horrible place full of hate consumed wankers with a few bears holding up against a tide of bile, the bears mentioned were Youngsy, devlin, mason and Dorlomin I think. Maybe i am one of the wankers then TBF, WKR is about the only person who shows blind hatred for all things Sevco. While the rest are generally just pointing and laughing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 TBF, WKR is about the only person who shows blind hatred for all things Sevco. While the rest are generally just pointing and laughing. Tis how he was dragged up. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Remember way back when Charlie Green was sniffing around Rangers back during the blue knights and Bill Miller days of trying to take over, a lot of Rangers fans didn't trust Charlie. Looks like they are being proven right, all it is from him is lies lies and more lies How is he explaining the Sevco 5088 & Sevco Scotland farce? I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him if I was a Rangers fan Luckily I'm not, so I hope he kills you again Remember, without a CVA the club would be dead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Remember way back when Charlie Green was sniffing around Rangers back during the blue knights and Bill Miller days of trying to take over, a lot of Rangers fans didn't trust Charlie. Looks like they are being proven right, all it is from him is lies lies and more lies How is he explaining the Sevco 5088 & Sevco Scotland farce? I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him if I was a Rangers fan Luckily I'm not, so I hope he kills you again Remember, without a CVA the club would be dead Your memory differs from mine, Green came in out of nowhere after Paul Murray and Bill Miller were more or less told to do one by D&P. Grier - Whyte Whyte - D&P D&P - Green Whyte & Green Most bears i'd say might have laughed at his comments but theres always been mistrust. I can see why a lot of fans did buy season tickets and other stuff - it was for the club, not Green. A right parcel of rogues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Just watched the STV interview. I can't understand what Green is playing at. Every time he gives an interview or releases a statement he becomes more discredited. Why doesn't he just shut the f**k up? Doesn't his legal team have any control over him? Craig Whyte must be laughing his tits off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 For the avoidance of doubt this attachment is a lie Not heard a word from Traynor yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Well Tedi the Rangers fans better start asking Charlie some serious questions about what is going on. IF it turns out that Whyte is telling the truth and he was conned by Green, wouldn't this raise big doubt about the sale? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
As We Rise Again Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 It's one thing after the other. I haven't seen the STV thing but I seen that people were saying Charles was uncomfortable with the questions which is a bit strange as he's usually good with the talking patter. The Whyte thing is a lot of complete bollocks to be fair I'd never listen to a word the rat b*****d says. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 It's one thing after the other. I haven't seen the STV thing but I seen that people were saying Charles was uncomfortable with the questions which is a bit strange as he's usually good with the talking patter. The Whyte thing is a lot of complete bollocks to be fair I'd never listen to a word the rat b*****d says. Another change of sig. Is that JT in a Chelsea Ultra kit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
As We Rise Again Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Another change of sig. Is that JT in a Chelsea Ultra kit. It's my practice ones until I get good at it. Aye it's Big JT, he's dressed for your mrs. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 It's one thing after the other. I haven't seen the STV thing but I seen that people were saying Charles was uncomfortable with the questions which is a bit strange as he's usually good with the talking patter. The Whyte thing is a lot of complete bollocks to be fair I'd never listen to a word the rat b*****d says. Brilliant. You don't check on what Green says, and you won't listen to what Whyte says. Mind you, there's clearly no reason for you to actually follow what's going on at your club, as Charles Green is "usually good with the talking patter". Un - fucking - believable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I wonder how much legal weight the paragraph in D&P's document has. The one that states that in the event of the CVA proposal failing, that Sevco 5088 are compelled to complete the assett purchase. Does it leave open the possibility of another company (Sevco Scotland) making the purchase? This is what Green suggests actually happened. Which does contradict the statements released to the press at that time. Could the whole shooting match, and Whyte's potential claim, hinge on what actually happened here? Surely it wouldn't take too much digging to establish the facts here. To me, it looks like there is actually, beneath all the bullshit, a truth in Green's claim in that Sevco Scotland did actually gain the assets without them ever being in the hands of Sevco 5088. I think, that even for him, that that is too big a lie to pull off for it to be otherwise. So it might well be a case of Green v Whyte without much of the fallout affecting Rangers. But I'm sure that if Whyte's lawyers have the stomach for it, and the cash, there could be the mother of all shitstorms being kicked up here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
As We Rise Again Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Brilliant. You don't check on what Green says, and you won't listen to what Whyte says. Mind you, there's clearly no reason for you to actually follow what's going on at your club, as Charles Green is "usually good with the talking patter". Un - fucking - believable. There's no need for me to check on what Green says when everything he does gets put on here by the obsessive brigade. Unbelievable Jeff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lodmoorhill Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I wonder how much legal weight the paragraph in D&P's document has. The one that states that in the event of the CVA proposal failing, that Sevco 5088 are compelled to complete the assett purchase. Does it leave open the possibility of another company (Sevco Scotland) making the purchase? This is what Green suggests actually happened. Which does contradict the statements released to the press at that time. Could the whole shooting match, and Whyte's potential claim, hinge on what actually happened here? Surely it wouldn't take too much digging to establish the facts here. To me, it looks like there is actually, beneath all the bullshit, a truth in Green's claim in that Sevco Scotland did actually gain the assets without them ever being in the hands of Sevco 5088. I think, that even for him, that that is too big a lie to pull off for it to be otherwise. So it might well be a case of Green v Whyte without much of the fallout affecting Rangers. But I'm sure that if Whyte's lawyers have the stomach for it, and the cash, there could be the mother of all shitstorms being kicked up here. I would say that it could come down to more than just Green v Whyte. If Whyte can prove he had a claim on the assets via a deal with Green, then Green sold on assets he didn't wholly own via the share issue, then surely it has implications for the shareholders. But, as you have said, it shouldn't take to much digging to find out the truth of the whole thing. The only reason I can think of for the lack of clarity so far, is that everyone involved has something to hide. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 When the CVA failed, any rights that Whyte had were gone, the descision to sell the assets and to who was 100% the descision of the administrators. I take that as your opinion Tedi, not an undeniable fact. At least not until it can be established that the binding agreement in the CVA proposal that Sevco5088 are obliged to purchase the assets can be shown that it is actually not binding at all. I think that any rights that Whyte had as a shareholder in Rangers did indeed become null and void when the CVA failed, but being a director/owner/investor in Sevco5088 is a completely different matter. If Whyte, who was involved (subject to scrutiny) with Sevco5088, is so inclined - can Sevco5088 sue for breach of contract? I am more than willing for anyone in the know on these matters to put me straight. I'm only asking the question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I would say that it could come down to more than just Green v Whyte. If Whyte can prove he had a claim on the assets via a deal with Green, then Green sold on assets he didn't wholly own via the share issue, then surely it has implications for the shareholders. But, as you have said, it shouldn't take to much digging to find out the truth of the whole thing. The only reason I can think of for the lack of clarity so far, is that everyone involved has something to hide. It looks to me that Whyte may not so much have a claim on the assets, not yet anyway, but that he might have a legal claim against Green. Basically it comes down to how much legal water the agreements that they came to hold, and if they can be proved. It really does look like Green shafted Whyte big time. I'm thinking that there must have been a provision somewhere for D&P to sell the assets to another company not stated in the CVA proposal. It just seems to obvious and easily scrutinised to be able to fly that one under the radar. Why the similar names - "Sevco"? 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.