swavkav Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 So they are not the same club after all, my head is spinning, my sides are splitting, my tears are rolling!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Judge notes a "number of typographical mistakes" on Brown's submission of arguments. The Judge must be a JKB regular Edited November 12, 2015 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 So they are not the same club after all, my head is spinning, my sides are splitting, my tears are rolling!! no, the lawyer, brown, representing green, is saying that from whites time to now they are the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 no, the lawyer, brown, representing green, is saying that from whites time to now they are the same Was there nothing said about screwing the Whyte between Green and Brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swavkav Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 no, the lawyer, brown, representing green, is saying that from whites time to now they are the same I was on the understanding that Sevco own everything. Players, grey skull, car park & what ever else as per Browns speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Was there nothing said about screwing the Whyte between Green and Brown? were all still here waiting on gold's appearance, it's gotta happen before the end of this saga lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 were all still here waiting on gold's appearance, it's gotta happen before the end of this saga lol Mr Gold appeared as a witness at the FTTT. I think he was the only player who didn't take a loan from the Trust but wanted to grow the capital. "A former Rangers player, Mr Gold, who is now assistant coach for a national age-group football team, gave evidence of the re-negotiation of his employment contract with the Club. In addition to his original salary being continued, contributions to the Trust would be made totalling ?500,000. These again would be held in trust. Mr Gold was content with the offer and did not seek to re-negotiate its terms. He took legal advice, who confirmed that it was a trust effective under English Law, whereby he himself could not dispose of the trust fund. Advances by way of loan could be made. On the re-negotiation of the contract he completed a Letter of Wishes and Loan Request, although in the event he chose not to take advantage of this. Mr Gold explained that he was concerned about the capital allocated to his personal sub-trust earning a reasonable interest rate on deposit, but did not wish to invest in shares or property. He spoke to his understanding that the funds in trust were not held on his direction: the Trustee?s approval was required". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 James Doleman ? ?@jamesdoleman The Court is told Green seeking funding for senior counsel, junior counsel, solicitors and any experts senior counsel wishes to call If this goes Greens way I hope King and Co have deep pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) I was on the understanding that Sevco own everything. Players, grey skull, car park & what ever else as per Browns speech yeah, he's saying that and that a company sevco bought the assets and thus rangers, as "a club" is no seperate entity, just a term for use, a club cannot sign contracts, it was sevco the company that did this, it was sevco that paid the players etc and it was the company rangers that did this pre the sale of assets(name "rangers" ) and not a seperate entity called "club" Edited November 12, 2015 by reaths17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 8s8 seconds ago Lord Doherty says he will "take some time to consider before issuing decision in writing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Mr Gold appeared as a witness at the FTTT. I think he was the only player who didn't take a loan from the Trust but wanted to grow the capital. "A former Rangers player, Mr Gold, who is now assistant coach for a national age-group football team, gave evidence of the re-negotiation of his employment contract with the Club. In addition to his original salary being continued, contributions to the Trust would be made totalling ?500,000. These again would be held in trust. Mr Gold was content with the offer and did not seek to re-negotiate its terms. He took legal advice, who confirmed that it was a trust effective under English Law, whereby he himself could not dispose of the trust fund. Advances by way of loan could be made. On the re-negotiation of the contract he completed a Letter of Wishes and Loan Request, although in the event he chose not to take advantage of this. Mr Gold explained that he was concerned about the capital allocated to his personal sub-trust earning a reasonable interest rate on deposit, but did not wish to invest in shares or property. He spoke to his understanding that the funds in trust were not held on his direction: the Trustee?s approval was required". how did i miss this hoot, game set n match then, their finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 no, the lawyer, brown, representing green, is saying that from whites time to now they are the same So will we have Rangers lawyer arguing they aren't? That would be funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 The Court is told Green seeking funding for senior counsel, junior counsel, solicitors and any experts senior counsel wishes to call Could get expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 8s8 seconds ago Lord Doherty says he will "take some time to consider before issuing decision in writing". The wheels of justice turn slowly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 So will we have Rangers lawyer arguing they aren't? That would be funny. its down for continuing tomorrow so i dare say it should be friday funday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 8s8 seconds ago Lord Doherty says he will "take some time to consider before issuing decision in writing". So is that us done ? Brown basically annihilated any real argument why this shouldn't be a slam dunk case and the judge is off to decide. Dont RIFC counter argument the comments made ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 It was interesting that the RIFC lawyer didn't challenge Brown's assertions on the nature of a "club". I don't know if Lord Doherty will make a pronouncement on this issue in his written judgement. I think he may shy away from giving a definitive answer, and will take the Regan defence of acknowledging that a "club" can be whatever a fan wants it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 It's very interesting and revealing the Wolffe didn't question or challange Brown on his logic about Rangers status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 were all still here waiting on gold's appearance, it's gotta happen before the end of this saga lol But the Black is the key to winning the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 its down for continuing tomorrow so i dare say it should be friday funday There will be no continuation tomorrow, which is a shame as I was free to go. Unfortunately, I couldn't be there today as it sounded an interesting debate with lots of little titbits of information revealed, some of which can't be repeated because they relate to the High Court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 But the Black is the key to winning the game. Mr Black sold the club for ?1 because it was deeply in the red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 But the Black is the key to winning the game. The new club let Ian Black go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 There will be no continuation tomorrow, which is a shame as I was free to go. Unfortunately, I couldn't be there today as it sounded an interesting debate with lots of little titbits of information revealed, some of which can't be repeated because they relate to the High Court case. from the tweets it sounds like Brown put up a convincing case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 No apparent rebuttal from Mr Wolffe which suggests to me what he said would have related to the criminal case or there was in fact no rebuttal that would have stood up against Browns presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 from the tweets it sounds like Brown put up a convincing case It won't matter, with QC versus a Lawyer I'll be amazed if a judge ruled for the junior. (and I speak from experience where I had to stump up for a QC because the other side did and my Lawyer said even though he was 100% I would win that it was a risk if I didn't sub him for a QC because QC v Lawyer could sway the judge - I did win btw but at QC cost) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 The tweets from Doleman are here including Wolffes submissions. https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesdoleman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Statement O'Clock Klaxon - Dave King http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers? history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club?s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club. As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations. First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn?t want to sign under different financial circumstances. Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club?s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue. Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs ? who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers? removal from the Premier League ? should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs. This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied. Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football. Edited November 12, 2015 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Dave King statement... It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers? history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club?s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club. As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations. First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn?t want to sign under different financial circumstances. Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club?s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue. Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs ? who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers? removal from the Premier League ? should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs. This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied. Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football. http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 In response to Kings diatribe... TheTributeAct ?@TheTributeAct 8m8 minutes ago Dave King can silence his critics by investing ?30m to secure Sevco's medium term future. Until then he's just a blogger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntledfan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 King continually shoots himself in the foot everytime he opens that sink hole of his He seems to have some rare form amnesia where he can never remember what he has said 1 month ago or 1 year ago even when it is put in print in front of him. I would suggest he concentrates on SEVCO (as this is their proper name still) and his ensuing fight with a billionaire as this has been done and dusted and proven they are the Lance Armstrong of Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 King spouts some rubbish "The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team." It did impact the team how can anyone claim it didn't is beyound belief. "Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club?s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue." LNS wasn't aware back then the the scheme being run was illegal and there will be an ongoing debate whether he likes it or not. "Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League." Demotion? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Phamism Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Dave King statement... It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers? history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club?s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club. As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations. First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn?t want to sign under different financial circumstances. Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club?s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue. Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs ? who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers? removal from the Premier League ? should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs. This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied. Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football. http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ Still doesn't get it does he... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sraman Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34800109 Does this mean that ICT's Boards fiduciary duty is to ensure that Sevco are never in the same league as them again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Is JoeStrummer who posts on The Telegraph actually Dave King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drumelzier Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Dave King statement... It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers? history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club?s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club. As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations. First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn?t want to sign under different financial circumstances. Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club?s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue. Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs ? who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers? removal from the Premier League ? should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs. This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied. Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football. http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/ Was that ghost written by Vladimir Putin ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Dave King f$%"? me Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn?t want to sign under different financial circumstances. So he admits players may not have signed as a result of tax evasion therefore they gained a sporting advantage by having those players playing? otherwise its conjecture on his part that the players of equal ability would have delivered the same results in the trophy cabinet. This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied. Which other clubs had a tax evasion policy Dave ? and what rewriting is required for anyone else if ****** are used in replacement of Rangers titles absolutely none. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs. Thats a bit rich perhaps focusing on your own legal and fiduciary responsibilities as that isnt going to well. Im also sure people can multi task they can look after their own responsibilities and still highlight the lack of it from Oldco. Perhaps part of their responsibility is to Scottish football and making sure it is seen to be clean so that they can continue to generate the best income for their clubs and shareholders and to do this is to make sure clubs are accountable for unfair practice. The boy is a plank and his threats will automatically make things worse for peoples views. What he has done is annoy more supporters and probably a few clubs at the same time which doesnt bode well, this has 2012 all over again as he is stoking fires rather than putting them out. Edited November 12, 2015 by Jamboelite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Tom English ?@BBCTomEnglish 3m3 minutes ago Dave King has a strange way of trying to douse a debate - gallon of petrol and a flamethrower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8skacel8 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 King has hit the panic button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodami Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Still doesn't get it does he...To the point where he makes statements guaranteed to inflame other clubs boards. It's like he is determined to tear them down from within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Issues an open threat to everybody who would try and re-write history and then goes on to say let's all be friends now. It's Rangers that have been trying to re-write history for the last 3 years, not the other way around. But according to King all of this is just the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans, yeh ok Dave. Still peddling the myth that Rangers were demoted from the league as well I see, what was that about re-writing history again Dave? Total fud of a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodami Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Is JoeStrummer who posts on The Telegraph actually Dave King.I've seen the ending, the law wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Well there you have it,bend over and take it up the hairy bahookie. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot,that statement will enrage fans of other clubs,he's a raving lunatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackney Hearts Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Tom English ?@BBCTomEnglish 3m3 minutes ago Dave King has a strange way of trying to douse a debate - gallon of petrol and a flamethrower Spot on! The man is clearly a lunatic. "Let's be friends or I'll smash your f*****g heads in!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Grant Russell ?@STVGrant 8s8 seconds ago Lord Doherty says he will "take some time to consider before issuing decision in writing". Odd that there only seems to have been one side to the argument and that's it. Lord Doherty was the geezer who sat in the chair for HMRC's upper tribunal appeal last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Hoi! King... **** you. After reading that ridiculous bucket of pish, I now want your club absolutely torn to shreds and stripped of titles, a change of point of view from that which I had before. The stupid old dickhead honestly believes that Rangers are in some way keeping Scottish Football from falling apart. Shred the ****ers plz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 DK's veiled threats timed nicely to coincide with Lord Doherty's deliberations. Couldn't make it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntledfan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Odd that there only seems to have been one side to the argument and that's it. Lord Doherty was the geezer who sat in the chair for HMRC's upper tribunal appeal last year. There was two submissions, one form Chuckles QC and one from Sevco's lawyer, unfortunately for SEVCO their lawyer was shown the exact extent of how they should pay up the fees to Chuckles as he has them bang to rights. I dont think the judge will have much deliberation on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackney Hearts Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Hoi! King... **** you. After reading that ridiculous bucket of pish, I now want your club absolutely torn to shreds and stripped of titles, a change of point of view from that which I had before. Exactly. Anyone who was 'meh' will surely have been kicked violently towards the 'flaming torches' approach if they read this. We're used to the arrogant patronising tone - but this has thrown in some really ugly threats which would be more at home on a 1970s terracing rather than an official club statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzbomb1958 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 A statement from a man who finds all four walls closing in on him ,it reeks of a club who knows their time has come .The statement itself shows how detestable that club has become,they are dying by the day and I for one cannot wait till this odius institution is put to the sword once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts