King : Bomber should stand vindicated by Rangers fans

[Guardian 4,281]

Check who the shareholders are of Sevco 5088 ? It doesn't matter who's listed as directors.

Why would Whyte agree to transfer the floating charge he held without getting a pay off ? Answer that.

Does a floating charge still float if the company is liquidated ?

Charlie played a blinder and now the dhims are spewing. It's been a bad few days for them

They helped us get rid of Sandaza and his wages, the league reconstruction is off and now we hear CG has stitched up Whyte. The obsessed are so blinded by fury, they are now believing Craig Whyte

I think Green has done a marvellous job and it'll take a lot more than a timmy campaign or the google-eyed one, to make me think otherwise.

[Blade 38]

Oh you can assure me....well it must be true then....funny how you haven't mentioned it before and choose to do so under these speculative and sensationalised circumstances?

If you don't trust green that's up to you but I fail to believe he would tell some random punter this at any stage! Also taking away the media twists and misleading headlines have you actually read the comments from whyte and green on this? Also what evidence do you have to base on your assumption green shouldn't be trusted!

Because i'd have been dismissed as a crank or a Mhank. Just like everyone on here dismissed Bomber.

Charles Green would speak to anyone. At the time, he was desperate to ingratiate himself with any Rangers' fans. He's loose with his lips and doesn't always engage his brain before he speaks - there's loads of examples of this.

As to why he shouldn't be trusted, look at his record at Sheffield Utd.

Have you never wondered how he managed to get rid of Whyte ? Why would Whyte co-operate if there wasn't something in it for him ? The whole thing stinks.

I assume you 've never read the transcript of the taped conversation that Whyte had with the guy from Colliers Brystow where they discuss getting a media company to do a press release "for the benefit of Charles". I'm only surprised that the BBC haven't made more of this.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

Because i'd have been dismissed as a crank or a Mhank. Just like everyone on here dismissed Bomber.

Charles Green would speak to anyone. At the time, he was desperate to ingratiate himself with any Rangers' fans. He's loose with his lips and doesn't always engage his brain before he speaks - there's loads of examples of this.

As to why he shouldn't be trusted, look at his record at Sheffield Utd.

Have you never wondered how he managed to get rid of Whyte ? Why would Whyte co-operate if there wasn't something in it for him ? The whole thing stinks.

I assume you 've never read the transcript of the taped conversation that Whyte had with the guy from Colliers Brystow where they discuss getting a media company to do a press release "for the benefit of Charles". I'm only surprised that the BBC haven't made more of this.

Whyte did not have to co-operate when the CVA failed, he had no control over the asset sale.

Additionally, you cannot take days and weeks of Bomber rambling and decide to boil it down to 'he said don't trust CG'.

[Blade 38]

Does a floating charge still float if the company is liquidated ?

Charlie played a blinder and now the dhims are spewing. It's been a bad few days for them

They helped us get rid of Sandaza and his wages, the league reconstruction is off and now we hear CG has stitched up Whyte. The obsessed are so blinded by fury, they are now believing Craig Whyte

I think Green has done a marvellous job and it'll take a lot more than a timmy campaign or the google-eyed one, to make me think otherwise.

I'm not a solicitor nor a CA. May be someone who's a solicitor or CA on here can advise ? Someone has to hold the titles whether the co is liquidated or not.

But it seems that Green secured control before the old co was liquidated. This may make a difference.

No doubt, Charles Green has done a marvellous job of rallying the fans, selling season tickets and with the share issue, but he's done this to make money .... rather than in the interests of the club. My concern is that he and his consortium will pocket the money and the club will go back into administration.

[scarkev 3,540]

Because i'd have been dismissed as a crank or a Mhank. Just like everyone on here dismissed Bomber.

Charles Green would speak to anyone. At the time, he was desperate to ingratiate himself with any Rangers' fans. He's loose with his lips and doesn't always engage his brain before he speaks - there's loads of examples of this.

As to why he shouldn't be trusted, look at his record at Sheffield Utd.

Have you never wondered how he managed to get rid of Whyte ? Why would Whyte co-operate if there wasn't something in it for him ? The whole thing stinks.

I assume you 've never read the transcript of the taped conversation that Whyte had with the guy from Colliers Brystow where they discuss getting a media company to do a press release "for the benefit of Charles". I'm only surprised that the BBC haven't made more of this.

Well you clearly have a very slanted opinion on his time at Sheffield utd but even if that were true that does not necessarily reflect his conduct at rangers....very different situations.....

And you thought by waiting to post this speculation that green chose to divulge such things to you under these circumstances would have people looking to you as some bastion of truth.....unless you have proof then as far as I am concerned you are an opportunistic liar!

Green had to deal with whyte to get his shares just like Brian Kennedy was doing as well! The only way he could get his shares was to make him believe he still retained some involvement....this has all been explained yet you seem convinced by misleading and innacuate information portrayed in the rags and by moronic salivating taigs!

The fact is as green said if there is anything untoward why nearly a year later has whyte done nothing? Why has he not took him to court? Why instead of doing that does he go to the papers who despite the source will print an anti rangers story gladly!

I appreciate accusations are a touchy topic at the moment but you are either someone deserve of accusations on a fishing trip or you are a rather nieve and clueless individual who puts his faith and trust in media outlets conveying a twisted portrayal of the facts!

[Blade 38]

Whyte did not have to co-operate when the CVA failed, he had no control over the asset sale.

Additionally, you cannot take days and weeks of Bomber rambling and decide to boil it down to 'he said don't trust CG'.

You're right Whyte didn't have to co-operate ! So why do you think he did ?

Whyte is certainly not philanthropic !

The crux of what Bomber was saying was "don't trust CG". What did you take out of Bomber's "ramblings" (as you put it) ?

[legalbeagle 3,734]

You're right Whyte didn't have to co-operate ! So why do you think he did ?

Whyte is certainly not philanthropic !

The crux of what Bomber was saying was "don't trust CG". What did you take out of Bomber's "ramblings" (as you put it) ?

Firstly, Whyte did not co-operate, and the money he lodged in an account after the fact was clearly an attempt to set up some future profit from earnings.

What Bomber was saying (as I recall) was 'I am buying the club with these two spivs' then 'show us the deeds' then 'if I told you what Green said he would be hunted' and then 'I have other backers but I can't tell you who they are, but I will in 24 hours' oh and he told fans not to buy season tickets, and took some old dude's season ticket money.

[Blade 38]

Well you clearly have a very slanted opinion on his time at Sheffield utd but even if that were true that does not necessarily reflect his conduct at rangers....very different situations.....

And you thought by waiting to post this speculation that green chose to divulge such things to you under these circumstances would have people looking to you as some bastion of truth.....unless you have proof then as far as I am concerned you are an opportunistic liar!

Green had to deal with whyte to get his shares just like Brian Kennedy was doing as well! The only way he could get his shares was to make him believe he still retained some involvement....this has all been explained yet you seem convinced by misleading and innacuate information portrayed in the rags and by moronic salivating taigs!

The fact is as green said if there is anything untoward why nearly a year later has whyte done nothing? Why has he not took him to court? Why instead of doing that does he go to the papers who despite the source will print an anti rangers story gladly!

I appreciate accusations are a touchy topic at the moment but you are either someone deserve of accusations on a fishing trip or you are a rather nieve and clueless individual who puts his faith and trust in media outlets conveying a twisted portrayal of the facts!

Oh yeah, right !!! I'm an opportunist liar now !!! And naive and clueless !!! I could make the latter two accusations of you and others on here.

Well, I'm certainly no Craig Whyte. No financial gain to be had on here or any other gain for that matter. Only abuse !

Has it never occurred to you that Whyte wanted the flotation to go through before making any legal challenge ? How was he ever going to get any money out of the club, other than the money he stole during his ruinous reign ?

[scarkev 3,540]

Oh yeah, right !!! I'm an opportunist liar now !!! And naive and clueless !!! I could make the latter two accusations of you and others on here.

Well, I'm certainly no Craig Whyte. No financial gain to be had on here or any other gain for that matter. Only abuse !

Has it never occurred to you that Whyte wanted the flotation to go through before making any legal challenge ? How was he ever going to get any money out of the club, other than the money he stole during his ruinous reign ?

The IPO went through in December it is now April! Do you have any proof or evidence of your claims? No! Well then yes my opinion of you and your motives will remain the same!

[Blade 38]

The IPO went through in December it is now April! Do you have any proof or evidence of your claims? No! Well then yes my opinion of you and your motives will remain the same!

It's seems Whyte's legal challenge started in December. Any coincidence ?

We'll see what happens in the fullness of time.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

You're right Whyte didn't have to co-operate ! So why do you think he did ?

Whyte is certainly not philanthropic !

The crux of what Bomber was saying was "don't trust CG". What did you take out of Bomber's "ramblings" (as you put it) ?

You're really missing the point and I'm beginning to suspect that you're doing so willingly.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

It's seems Whyte's legal challenge started in December. Any coincidence ?

We'll see what happens in the fullness of time.

Which legal challenge? Where was it lodged?

Please provide a link or verified evidence and not speculation.

[Blade 38]

You're really missing the point and I'm beginning to suspect that you're doing so willingly.

Eh ?

[Blade 38]

Which legal challenge? Where was it lodged?

Please provide a link or verified evidence and not speculation.

So you don't believe there will be a legal challenge by that wee charlaton Whyte ? Do you really believe Whyte would be prepared to walk away with nothing after getting himself title to Ibrox, Murray Park and the Albion?

Never wondered why everything went through so smoothly for Green ? Are you not suspicious of the relationships between Whyte, Duff & Phelps and Green ?

[Getstiffed 8,863]

Because i'd have been dismissed as a crank or a Mhank. Just like everyone on here dismissed Bomber.

Charles Green would speak to anyone. At the time, he was desperate to ingratiate himself with any Rangers' fans. He's loose with his lips and doesn't always engage his brain before he speaks - there's loads of examples of this.

As to why he shouldn't be trusted, look at his record at Sheffield Utd.

Have you never wondered how he managed to get rid of Whyte ? Why would Whyte co-operate if there wasn't something in it for him ? The whole thing stinks.

I assume you 've never read the transcript of the taped conversation that Whyte had with the guy from Colliers Brystow where they discuss getting a media company to do a press release "for the benefit of Charles". I'm only surprised that the BBC haven't made more of this.

You mean the Wednesday who spent themselves into massive debt chasing promotion to the English premier league that Green made solvent again? That Sheffield Wednesday?

Uh-oh boys, Charles Green saved a club that gambled and lost, time to panic!!! Abandon ship!!

I'm thinking of a phrase, it begins with "fuck" and ends with "off".

[RFC55 108,893]

Sorry about James McFadden blade

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Yes - he did. Whether you care to believe me or not is up to you. You obviously don't want to believe its true, but I can assure you it's true.

Well how can we possibly doubt it now then?

You must think we are all daft

[Blade 38]

Firstly, Whyte did not co-operate, and the money he lodged in an account after the fact was clearly an attempt to set up some future profit from earnings.

What Bomber was saying (as I recall) was 'I am buying the club with these two spivs' then 'show us the deeds' then 'if I told you what Green said he would be hunted' and then 'I have other backers but I can't tell you who they are, but I will in 24 hours' oh and he told fans not to buy season tickets, and took some old dude's season ticket money.

Think you'll find that Whyte did co-operate with Green ! Otherwise, how do you explain how Green got the floating charge off Whyte ?

[Blade 38]

You mean the Wednesday who spent themselves into massive debt chasing promotion to the English premier league that Green made solvent again? That Sheffield Wednesday?

Uh-oh boys, Charles Green saved a club that gambled and lost, time to panic!!! Abandon ship!!

I'm thinking of a phrase, it begins with "fuck" and ends with "off".

It was Sheffield Utd that he was involved with not Wednesday !

[daviecooper01 826]

Think you'll find that Whyte did co-operate with Green ! Otherwise, how do you explain how Green got the floating charge off Whyte ?

Floating charge irrelevant. There was no Cva.

[Blade 38]

Well how can we possibly doubt it now then?

You must think we are all daft

Only telling you what Green told me. It's up to you whether you believe me or not. At the time, I found it hard to believe what he was telling me and how open he was about this, when I asked how he'd got Whyte to agree to transfer the titles.

Is it any wonder that I didn't post this earlier !

Is there no one else on here that has doubts about CG and how he got control of the club ?

[Blade 38]

Floating charge irrelevant. There was no Cva.

Don't think that's the case, but if there's a legal expert on here then I will bow to their superior knowledge.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

Don't think that's the case, but if there's a legal expert on here then I will bow to their superior knowledge.

It would take a LONG time to explain it, but the easiest way to look at it in our case is more in relation to prioritisation of creditors. Whyte's intention was to ensure that he would be top of the list for receiving funds in the liquidation process, before ordinary creditors.

An owner of a business can't just decide to own specific assets (which turn out to be the only actual assets of the business) and not allow them to be sold to pay debts, that would be a ridiculous perversion of any sense of legal propriety.

However, rather than making statements about floating charges, and then asking someone to explain them to you, wouldn't it be better if you backed up your comments with some hint of what you actually know, given that you are making insinuations about all of this stuff.

[daviecooper01 826]

Like I said, Whyte and everything connected to him became irrelevant with the failed Cva.

[Blade 38]

It would take a LONG time to explain it, but the easiest way to look at it in our case is more in relation to prioritisation of creditors. Whyte's intention was to ensure that he would be top of the list for receiving funds in the liquidation process, before ordinary creditors.

An owner of a business can't just decide to own specific assets (which turn out to be the only actual assets of the business) and not allow them to be sold to pay debts, that would be a ridiculous perversion of any sense of legal propriety.

However, rather than making statements about floating charges, and then asking someone to explain them to you, wouldn't it be better if you backed up your comments with some hint of what you actually know, given that you are making insinuations about all of this stuff.

I've told you all I know and what Green told me.

There have already been ridiculous perversions of the law in the original takeover by Whyte. Eg whyte borrowing money to buy the old co based on future earnings !!! How did Whyte manage to do this Mr Legalbegal ?

How do you surmise Whyte was persuaded to transfer ownership over to Green ? Papers need to be signed over. Why would Whyte do this without getting something out of this there and then or a promise of a future payment after the flotation ?