williemillersmoustache Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Then pay the millions owed by the oldco. Yahtzee! Crackerjack! Sevco! Congratulations you've just won the great new game for bears 2+, Sevco! It's easy and fun! All you need to do is start arguing that you're the actually same club, but through a twisted series of lies and self-delusions get caught arguing that you're totally,completely different we all shout Sevco! Sevco it's fun, not at all tedious and available everywhere* *Club that thinks it's a company except when it has liabilities paradox and some dissembling required. Warning, any old shit written by a former player, manager, trainer or chairmen will be completely swallowed. Cup competitions may cause choking hazard. Edited January 14, 2015 by williemillersmoustache 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Jakes n ladders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Not really, Rangers appealed the Telfer money based on being a continuation, so by being a continuation they are liable for the debt Nah not buying that one as the spfl was after that money before the telfer case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Then pay the millions owed by the oldco. Why would No.8pay oldco debts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Why would No.8pay oldco debts?Yawn!You really are a tedious kunt. Edited January 14, 2015 by TheLip69 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Why would No.8pay oldco debts? Your patters fukin chronic mate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Whit? This was not my tale it is yours. The 5 way agreement text makes it clear that it was nothing to do with the existing footballing debts, these were classed as things like transfer fees and match day revenue, the reason this FINE is payable is down to something else entirely, something that was completely hidden within this agreement and that nobody had blogged about. Away and don't shite. Just a shame that Law Lord didnt understand it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Jakes n ladders. The Game of Beaten Wives 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Your patters fukin chronic mate.in his head he thought that was funny. Then again he thinks his club still exists. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Fuckeroo, Twatgammon, Cheat (obviously) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The link was there with it, (1)if you have a sun account then use it if you feel that I had some other motive...or that I missed something then it should be easy enough to prove. You never asked for the entire post...you asked for the entire article. It absolutely is coincidence, but getting two replies to a post is not exactly a big coincidence. 1. Well, you missed the other article which your opposite number posted from the Guardian, which gives a wee bit of context, as well as being an object lesson in how, the lower the demographic of your target audience, the quicker you can change your moral stance in order to maintain sales. Maybe you weren't aware of it - I wasn't, but it should at least raise questions about your fellow follow followers' actions. 2. Napoleon? Check. Snowball? Check. OK, chaps, you are cleared for take-off... Wait...you asked for the actual article where the quotes originated but what you really wanted was an article from another newspaper? really? (2)your communication skills are bloody awful.(2a.) See, this where you let yourself down, instead of being desperate to just have a dig, it may be a good idea to just read the conversation to check what was asked for. The original request. Now he was quite specific...the source material...no editorial comments...no spin were the requests of the day. I obliged and copied the entire article straight from the sun (3)and the man who made those comments...not even the slightest cherry was picked. Not content with this, yer mate attacks me...why? because I did not supply another article that was not the source material but was full of editorial comment and spin. I do not mind when you make a chunt of yerself...honest. Stop being so pedantic...A link was also supplied (4)you are free to check if I changed anything. Sooooo... 1. No, it wasn't. Still isn't - you haven't even tried editing your post to fit your lie. 2. No. 3. Whereas your comprehension skills... (see quote from me above) 4. Not by you - nor by your wee mate with whom you'd struggle to form a wit. There is a link on the post which you both appear to believe is an unaltered piece from the Sun. More enquiring minds would ask, if the poster is willing to fúck about with fonts and styling, what else might he change? Not you two, though. The reason I've taken this long to reply is to check that it's not just my phone, but that the link does actually go where it took me first time - and it does. Story completely unrelated, but an apposite headline for you and Vicky. Thanks for the giggles. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Unusually, Tedi, I agree with you on the man's character and effect his output has on the perpetuation of the Sectarian divide in our country. It takes two to tango, though, and if the "sickeningly sectarian brush" quote you've been bandying about with abandon for so long did, indeed, have its roots as an insult from the fuckwits on the other side of the fence (rather than from an impartial and accountable source), then I'm afraid it carries about as much weight as your explanation of the old club's five stars. For the record, I and many other people find both sides of this divide equally obsolete, distasteful and stupid. The point is, CB, the existence of No8. doesn't make Phil InsertNameHere any better or worse a person, or vice versa. They're both trapped in a mindset where fear and loathing of the "other" colours their day-to-day existence. First time I've seen it as well, and it's fucking horrible. How anyone could deny it is offensive, and sectarian to boot, is beyond me. I'm just glad I don't move in the circles where it's necessary to follow what he's saying - unklik,e some of the P&B sleuth, obviously. Norman really doesn't like anyone being critical of or mocking Philip, strange behaviour from the die hard Killie fan.... The first three quotes are just from today. I really can't like myself much, then - according to Vicky logic. The final post is the usual lazy, abusive, nonsensical quote we've come to expect from the gloryhunting little troll from Kilmarnock. There was a time when I enjoyed taking the piss out of you and yer wee mates, but you do it so much better yourselves these days. Must have twisted your little brains with all that history - good/debt - bad bollox you've been spouting for so long. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 LOL it was right there in the post from Bennett, did you want me to copy it across on to my post just to keep you happy? Well why the hell criticize me for doing exactly as you asked and not introducing the article that would have went against exactly what you asked then? That was not what you originally asked for was it? this is what you subsequently latched onto because suddenly the piece with spin attached not from the original source suited your agenda. Really...what happens when you actually log in. Have you cast the net a bit further....go on..it is there word for word on one of your bloggers websites...perhaps they changed it too? to the exact same version that is not displayed once but twice on this forum. LOL indeed - have you even now tried clicking on it, rather than rely on Vicky's oh-so-reliable word as to where it leads? You didn't do as I asked - read this next line slowly and ask a grown-up if any of it confuses you: A C&P OF A POST ON PIE AND BOVRIL IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF THE SCOTTISH SUN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Disingenuous springs to mind..rather than pick the King up for blatantly misquoting the Sun editor you have spent the rest of the day practising pedantry and wriggling like a baited worm around the exact article that The King quoted from...even the subsequent article you suddenly grabbed, the one with spin and editorial play confirmed the exact same thing. The King - who, FWIW, I see as about a level-headed, sensible poster as you - hasn't been carrying out personal attacks on YT. You, on the other hand, can't help yourself. Of course, if you could ever stop your pavlovian reaction to please Vicky every time you see one of my posts, you'd have read me disagreeing with him at least once today, and not for the first time. What "exact same thing" are you babbling about now? I simply pointed out that it may, for a change, be useful for your debating position to see what others had to say on the matter - or, in this case, what NI's opinion of the man was before an apparently organised campaign was mounted against him. And maybe, just maybe, ask yourself what prompted their change of heart. Or did you think nobody at NI had heard of him before the book came out? Typically, you continue to cleave to the bits which suit your isolationist view of the world, and ignore anything which may challenge you to think. How did things pan out with Mr Green, btw? (I'd forgotten that wee chapter in your personal "journey") 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Normans off on one again lol, god knows what's got him so worked up over someone he claims that be dislikes. Best to leave him go it and not get bogged down.... -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Normans off on one again lol, god knows what's got him so worked up over someone he claims that be dislikes. Best to leave him go it and not get bogged down.... Strange way to acknowledge your monumentally stupid fúck-up this evening, Vicky. Just out of interest, have you tried clicking on your magic link to that Sun article yet? Looks like your problems with links extends further than an inability to follow them. Not quite up there with Tedi's explode-in-your-face UEFA work, but you're fairly new to the game I suppose. Carry on, I expect better in future. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Game of clones 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) It's quite clear that the Sun article was saying pretty much what Tedi claimed it did, rather than what the King wished to suggest. It's quite possible - and indeed sensible - to regard Phil as a dangerous, bigoted clown with an utterly warped and self-serving discriminatory perspective; while simultaneously recognising that the Sun got a fright from the reaction of Rangers fans and was only too happy to find a reason to give into them, in the interests of protecting sales. Edited January 14, 2015 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 It's quite clear that the Sun article was saying pretty much what Tedi claimed it did, rather than what the King wished to suggest. It's quite possible - and indeed sensible - to regard Phil as a dangerous, bigoted clown with an utterly warped and self-serving discriminatory perspective; while simultaneously recognising that the Sun got a fright from the reaction of Rangers fans and was only too happy to find a reason to give into them, in the interests of protecting sales. Bloody Hell, MT - you'll get nowhere on this thread with a balanced outlook like that - have a word with yourself, man! (BTW, click benny's wee link, just for giggles..) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Normans off on one again lol, god knows what's got him so worked up over someone he claims that be dislikes. Best to leave him go it and not get bogged down.... The way you jump on every post made by WRK is creepy..... in fact it is down right disturbing. Why not try and log off and give him some peace... or are you happy for posters to think of you as a creepy,stalking little shitebag??? 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.