Craig Whyte Trial

[Paralytic Critic]

It nearly came out, oh my it nearly came out...Donald you should have got into it.

 

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/860489152034484224

[hellbhoy]

6 hours ago, Paralytic Critic said:

It nearly came out, oh my it nearly came out...Donald you should have got into it.

 

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/860489152034484224

And near the end of the court proceedings we will finally come too, the club died through insolvency problems and then got liquidated. Yummy, can't wait and popcorn supplies have been replenished.

[The DA]

27 minutes ago, hellbhoy said:

And near the end of the court proceedings we will finally come too, the club died through insolvency problems and then got liquidated. Yummy, can't wait and popcorn supplies have been replenished.

Findlay had his chance to take it down that road but balked at it - understandably for a man of his, ehm... persuasion. What was it he said? 'Let's not go into all that'.

[hellbhoy]

3 minutes ago, The DA said:

Findlay had his chance to take it down that road but balked at it - understandably for a man of his, ehm... persuasion. What was it he said? 'Let's not go into all that'.

I beg to differ DA, neither did he say or imply that the club didn't die ie liquidated, dissolved, cease to trade any more etc etc etc.

And in the closing speech it is going to be very difficult to avoid the huge big blue elephant in the room, even Findlay knows he cannot say legally in a court of law that the club was sold to new owners because of it's financial disposition being in the process of being wound up as an entity in it's own right recognised by law by being liquidated.

This is where they can't use the SFA's & SPFL's rules and regulations that to them the associations it is the very same member as they have always had and it says so in their rules because? legally the law put the club death by liquidating the CLUBS assets to pay of as much as the clubs debts to it's creditors. There is no escaping that at all in court, thems the facts.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, hellbhoy said:

I beg to differ DA, neither did he say or imply that the club didn't die ie liquidated, dissolved, cease to trade any more etc etc etc.

And in the closing speech it is going to be very difficult to avoid the huge big blue elephant in the room, even Findlay knows he cannot say legally in a court of law that the club was sold to new owners because of it's financial disposition being in the process of being wound up as an entity in it's own right recognised by law by being liquidated.

This is where they can't use the SFA's & SPFL's rules and regulations that to them the associations it is the very same member as they have always had and it says so in their rules because? legally the law put the club death by liquidating the CLUBS assets to pay of as much as the clubs debts to it's creditors. There is no escaping that at all in court, thems the facts.

You don't half waffle.  There is absolutely no reason for Findlay to mention the administration nor liquidation of Rangers in a "closing speech".

[Insaintee]

13 hours ago, MIRROR said:

And Rangers fans still blame Whyte 

Murray and the board including King previously used Ticketus for capital.

Had previous meetings with Whyte.

Knew Whyte was using Ticketus to finance the deal.

 

 

in what world is Whyte the bad guy?

Hhunworld

[Insaintee]

3 hours ago, strichener said:

You don't half waffle.  There is absolutely no reason for Findlay to mention the administration nor liquidation of Rangers in a "closing speech".

Not if he want's whyte convicted. . . .    Oh wait.

 

By which I mean the whole case is that Sir David did not want the hhuns liquidated, and would not have sold the team if the thought that would be the outcome. 

Findleys defence is that Sir David sold the team as effectively a prepacked liquidation package. Whyte took one last roll of the dice to try and save them using CL money and failed. Then went down the exact same root that Sir David went. 

[Insaintee]

5 minutes ago, Insaintee said:

the exact same root that Sir David went. 

 

[weirdcal]

Remember. David murray pushed through the deal so he could get the metals business back... the great chairman who caused all the shitstorm didnt care anymore

[bennett]

10 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

I beg to differ DA, neither did he say or imply that the club didn't die ie liquidated, dissolved, cease to trade any more etc etc etc.

And in the closing speech it is going to be very difficult to avoid the huge big blue elephant in the room, even Findlay knows he cannot say legally in a court of law that the club was sold to new owners because of it's financial disposition being in the process of being wound up as an entity in it's own right recognised by law by being liquidated.

This is where they can't use the SFA's & SPFL's rules and regulations that to them the associations it is the very same member as they have always had and it says so in their rules because? legally the law put the club death by liquidating the CLUBS assets to pay of as much as the clubs debts to it's creditors. There is no escaping that at all in court, thems the facts.

HBQC 

 

[The DA]

11 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

I beg to differ DA, neither did he say or imply that the club didn't die ie liquidated, dissolved, cease to trade any more etc etc etc.

And in the closing speech it is going to be very difficult to avoid the huge big blue elephant in the room, even Findlay knows he cannot say legally in a court of law that the club was sold to new owners because of it's financial disposition being in the process of being wound up as an entity in it's own right recognised by law by being liquidated.

This is where they can't use the SFA's & SPFL's rules and regulations that to them the associations it is the very same member as they have always had and it says so in their rules because? legally the law put the club death by liquidating the CLUBS assets to pay of as much as the clubs debts to it's creditors. There is no escaping that at all in court, thems the facts.

This case isn't about the Death of Rangers, it's about whether the original Rangers were acquired fraudulently. It's about 2010/11, not 2012.  Why would he prejudice what is looking increasingly like a winning hand by going into the murky waters regarding the meaning of liquidation?

[Ken Fitlike]

Indeed, the trial is not as to whether Rangers died ( which they did, of course) but whether Craig Whyte is guily of fraud. 

 

but even so to hellbhoy's post....

[Insaintee]

29 minutes ago, The DA said:

This case isn't about the Death of Rangers, it's about whether the original Rangers were acquired fraudulently. It's about 2010/11, not 2012.  Why would he prejudice what is looking increasingly like a winning hand by going into the murky waters regarding the meaning of liquidation?

For the LOLs obviously 

[The DA]

28 minutes ago, Insaintee said:

For the LOLs obviously 

For someone who looks like he's living in the 1860s, he has a very dry sense of humour.

[hellbhoy]

14 hours ago, strichener said:

You don't half waffle.  There is absolutely no reason for Findlay to mention the administration nor liquidation of Rangers in a "closing speech".

[hellbhoy]

5 hours ago, The DA said:

This case isn't about the Death of Rangers, it's about whether the original Rangers were acquired fraudulently. It's about 2010/11, not 2012.  Why would he prejudice what is looking increasingly like a winning hand by going into the murky waters regarding the meaning of liquidation?

Good point! I kinda got focused on the wrong subject there.

Just have to wait for the HMRC to do the business with the Big Tax Case.

[The DA]

17 minutes ago, hellbhoy said:

Good point! I kinda got focused on the wrong subject there.

Just have to wait for the HMRC to do the business with the Big Tax Case.

Anyone know how long it tends to take the Supreme Court to reach a decision in a non-complex case like this? 

[hellbhoy]

2 minutes ago, The DA said:

Anyone know how long it tends to take the Supreme Court to reach a decision in a non-complex case like this? 

I don't care as long as the outcome is favourable to the plastics & diddies for goading the ****.

[Ken Fitlike]

isn't goading frowned upon these days?

[hellbhoy]

Just now, Ken Fitlike said:

isn't goading frowned upon these days?

Well Div did give us this subhuman forum to goad each other in? If it's OK with Div then who am I to not take advantage of this?