THE KING Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Remind me of what you got banned for. Confusing me with TEDI and No8. Again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Union of Fans spokesman Chris Graham said: “The Sarver offer was always a bit of a sideshow as it was never really a viable offer. Now that it has been withdrawn we can now start looking at the real business, which is where are they going to get the short-term funding from. Hahaha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Bill Miller, in all likelihood, would have been the best option and not burned through £millions in achieving absofuckinglutely nothing. Mercifully he got chased away from taking over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim999 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Sarver aside, anyone out there from a fairly neutral persuasion have any rough idea of the implications to rangers/sevco (if any) should White or Green do get found guilty on any fraud charges here? Some of a Rangers persuasion reckon only the accused personally would be penalised whilst others think otherwise. I appreciate there may not be a lot of lawyers out there guys and girls but the thread is a bit tit for tat just now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Has anyone mentioned Bill Ng recently? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Confusing me with TEDI and No8. Again. No confusion. We all know you were banned for racism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Sarver aside, anyone out there from a fairly neutral persuasion have any rough idea of the implications to rangers/sevco (if any) should White or Green do get found guilty on any fraud charges here? Some of a Rangers persuasion reckon only the accused personally would be penalised whilst others think otherwise. I appreciate there may not be a lot of lawyers out there guys and girls but the thread is a bit tit for tat just now. Scroll back. This has been dealt with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim999 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Scroll back. This has been dealt with. In some ways it has. I know it's pishing into a breeze and it's not P&B's nature but for you personally for example, are you in the least bit worried about any negative outcome for Green or White affecting your club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Scroll back. This has been dealt with. Dealt with like the banned song book at Ibrox or actually dealt with? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Bill Miller, in all likelihood, would have been the best option and not burned through £millions in achieving absofuckinglutely nothing. Mercifully he got chased away from taking over. Not only did Miller back off once he looked it over, d and P were only selling to one person and I'm sure it was reported that miller wanted certain guarantees from the SPL over SPL football but you apparently know better..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 No confusion. We all know you were banned for racism. News to me chump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Ahh! Bill Miller, those were the days! Those were the days before the clumpany fairy-tales. A time when the Old-Rangers fans knew that liquidation was the end. Boy did they not like his plans. Say no to liquidation was the mantra. I wonder if they've still got those banners? Yours aDONis Edited January 5, 2016 by aDONisSheep 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 In some ways it has. I know it's pishing into a breeze and it's not P&B's nature but for you personally for example, are you in the least bit worried about any negative outcome for Green or White affecting your club? Paying a bloke to sit in court and tweet about a fraud case is the real story here. I've said above that there is no implication for Rangers whatever the outcome of this trial. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Paying a bloke to sit in court and tweet about a fraud case is the real story here. I've said above that there is no implication for Rangers whatever the outcome of this trial. I've no idea what might or might not happen but is it not within the bounds of possibility that any assets fraudulently purchased might be returned to the liquidators? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I've no idea what might or might not happen but is it not within the bounds of possibility that any assets fraudulently purchased might be returned to the liquidators? You're doing The Applepines' work for them here, DA. This is the 'buying a stolen car' analogy I referred to earlier and has as much credibility as Mixu has in his own dressing room. Any comment on the Yins paying a bloke to tweet about wee Craigy's day in court? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Paying a bloke to sit in court and tweet about a fraud case is the real story here. I've said above that there is no implication for Rangers whatever the outcome of this trial. It really isn't any sort of story, let alone THE story here. I don't know of anyone who's contributed to Doleman's expedition. It's not remotely relevant to me or the vast bulk of those interested in the outcome of proceedings. Genuine question, because I've no real personal grasp of such matters at all: How come, there's no implication? I understand why it's potentially catastrophic for those in the dock. If Sevco was created by the fraudulent purchase of assets though, how come that can't impact on Sevco now? I'm trying hard to be one of those mythical, neutral BRALTers, but I suspect that previous form might get in the way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 It really isn't any sort of story, let alone THE story here. I don't know of anyone who's contributed to Doleman's expedition. It's not remotely relevant to me or the vast bulk of those interested in the outcome of proceedings.Genuine question, because I've no real personal grasp of such matters at all: How come, there's no implication? I understand why it's potentially catastrophic for those in the dock. If Sevco was created by the fraudulent purchase of assets though, how come that can't impact on Sevco now?I'm trying hard to be one of those mythical, neutral BRALTers, but I suspect that previous form might get in the way.ooooh this'll be good. Bet you get lots of deflection and whataboutery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I'd be careful Kinky, you know what your fellow bears are like, they'll be hailing you as some sort of law expert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 There was a great thread on here when he asked for some help or support for something and among those piping up onside was a Falkirk fan. Another Falkirk fan then came on with evidence of Muirhead accusing Falkirk fans of sectarianism. The first Falkirk fan then told Muirhead to shove it. Honestly, it was much funnier than I'm making it sound with this sketchy account. ETA: At least I think it was Muirhead - I should probably have checked. I wouldn't bother - nobody else seems to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Genuine question, because I've no real personal grasp of such matters at all: How come, there's no implication? I understand why it's potentially catastrophic for those in the dock. If Sevco was created by the fraudulent purchase of assets though, how come that can't impact on Sevco now? Not surprisingly you're beguiled by the utter scum from the east end whose aberrant behaviour you're so tolerant of. The point of this trial isn't about a fraudulent transaction but about fraudulent acquisition of funds. Id est, the difference between buying a stolen car and using stolen money to buy a car. That subtlety is what is taxing the brains of the pathetic morons in grey and green. It really isn't any sort of story, let alone THE story here. It is, of course. The fraud case has no football implications. Tweetgate? You really can't see how disturbing that is? 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.