mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 That's entirely different from your statement that the sale can be contested. If I say that a lemon is yellow, then I say by yellow I mean it is pink, it doesn't make my first statement correct, it just makes me look stupid.In any event, the sale cannot be validly contested. Hopefully you will accept this now.Semantics mate.The avenue for claiming damages would be that the 'sale was completed to a party where there was no correct authorisation to do so, therefore breaking the exclusivity agreement', this could quite easily be shortened to state 'he is contesting that D&P did not honour the deal by selling to the agreed party'.This does not automatically mean that the sale would have to be unwound. It wont be and I have told you this many times. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
govanmob 11 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 The AP01 was filed in paper format, technically anyone could have sent it in. This AD01 is more difficult to fathom. And yes the thought of the obsessed ones doing this had crossed my mind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
castile 32 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Sorry if this point has aleady been raised. Why didn't Green issue the statement? Why was it delivered by a spokesman for Charles Green? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 I dont have time to read the whole thread but has whyte said why he only sent this in yesterday or if he even sent it in the first place? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted April 13, 2013 Author Share Posted April 13, 2013 Semantics mate.The avenue for claiming damages would be that the 'sale was completed to a party where there was no correct authorisation to do so, therefore breaking the exclusivity agreement', this could quite easily be shortened to state 'he is contesting that D&P did not honour the deal by selling to the agreed party'.This does not automatically mean that the sale would have to be unwound. It wont be and I have told you this many times.You are now conflating two issues. The sale to Sevco Scotland happened and will not be unhappening. The sale cannot be validly contested, howsoever you now want to twist your original words. Whatever recourse CW wants to take against Green or D&P matters not a jot to the sale. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 You are now conflating two issues. The sale to Sevco Scotland happened and will not be unhappening. The sale cannot be validly contested, howsoever you now want to twist your original words. Whatever recourse CW wants to take against Green or D&P matters not a jot to the sale.He's a trier - I will give him that Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Sorry if this point has aleady been raised.Why didn't Green issue the statement? Why was it delivered by a spokesman for Charles Green?They delivered the message they wanted to deliver. It would have turned into a circus with folk demanding Green answer questions if he was there.Sending a spokesman allows the message to go out, but they can then discuss the matter at the board meeting before coming out with hopefully a more substantial response. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 You are now conflating two issues. The sale to Sevco Scotland happened and will not be unhappening. The sale cannot be validly contested, howsoever you now want to twist your original words. Whatever recourse CW wants to take against Green or D&P matters not a jot to the sale.I know the sale wont be unhappening! Ive been saying that for days!I may have used the incorrect wording. He might not be able to contest the sale, but he might be able to contest that D&P did not honour the exclusivity agreement by selling to another party.Oh and I think you mean "Whatever recourse CW wants to take.....". I wont make a big deal out of this one little error in wording you used though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 I would like to add while Mitre is a pedantic so and soHe is a Bear... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted April 13, 2013 Author Share Posted April 13, 2013 I may have used the incorrect wording. He might not be able to contest the saleFinally, I get through to you. Apology accepted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 I would like to add while Mitre is a pedantic so and soHe is a Bear... Cheers mate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Finally, I get through to you. Apology accepted.Interesting interpretation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCDBigBear 10,831 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 D & P must know who was running Sevco 5088 at the outset. Green was the only director registered at that time. The D & P report of July 2012 stated that the Sevco bid of £5.5m for the "newco" route would be paid by a new company formed for the purpose. That is clearly Sevco Scotland. Whyte claimed that Sevco 5088 moved/sold the assets to Sevco Scotland and that is not the case. The assets went directly to Sevco Scotland from D & P. What we don't know is who paid the £5.5m to D & P and who provided the additional millions to run the club for a few months. Whilst that information may not be for total public consumption for whatever reason, the current board of directors should be given the information. We know that Green had to be in discussion with Whyte for the CVA but when that was rejected as expected then Green had no real use for Whyte that I can see. Green's consortium pay D & P the £5.5m and RFC moves on. Where it gets murky is that Whyte comes out with a claim (apparently in December) that he is due a share. He then waits another 4 months to claim he and a cohort are directors of Sevco 5088. Only D & P can confirm any significance of that to the sale of assets to Sevco Scotland. Even if there was some credence to Whyte's claim, he would require to prove his financial input to the Sevco Scotland purchase. Again if his claim had any validity, it is my assertion that any such claim would have to be against Green and/or D & P. If he thought he had been defrauded by Green then he should not have stood idly by whilst Green went ahead with what would have been an illegal IPO. If he deliberately remained silent at that time to allow the IPO to go through to increase the value of his claim then he will have been complicit in that action. Obviously there are a few conspiracy theories in that but that has been our modus operandi for the last couple of years.Green has a lot of questions to answer to the board. What I would like is for the Chairman to issue a statement after today's board meeting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamgers 1,214 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 not correct or valid = fakeJesusI know mate, not difficult is it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 D & P must know who was running Sevco 5088 at the outset. Green was the only director registered at that time. The D & P report of July 2012 stated that the Sevco bid of £5.5m for the "newco" route would be paid by a new company formed for the purpose. That is clearly Sevco Scotland. Whyte claimed that Sevco 5088 moved/sold the assets to Sevco Scotland and that is not the case. The assets went directly to Sevco Scotland from D & P. What we don't know is who paid the £5.5m to D & P and who provided the additional millions to run the club for a few months. Whilst that information may not be for total public consumption for whatever reason, the current board of directors should be given the information. We know that Green had to be in discussion with Whyte for the CVA but when that was rejected as expected then Green had no real use for Whyte that I can see. Green's consortium pay D & P the £5.5m and RFC moves on. Where it gets murky is that Whyte comes out with a claim (apparently in December) that he is due a share. He then waits another 4 months to claim he and a cohort are directors of Sevco 5088. Only D & P can confirm any significance of that to the sale of assets to Sevco Scotland. Even if there was some credence to Whyte's claim, he would require to prove his financial input to the Sevco Scotland purchase. Again if his claim had any validity, it is my assertion that any such claim would have to be against Green and/or D & P. If he thought he had been defrauded by Green then he should not have stood idly by whilst Green went ahead with what would have been an illegal IPO. If he deliberately remained silent at that time to allow the IPO to go through to increase the value of his claim then he will have been complicit in that action. Obviously there are a few conspiracy theories in that but that has been our modus operandi for the last couple of years.Green has a lot of questions to answer to the board. What I would like is for the Chairman to issue a statement after today's board meeting.Fully agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 I know mate, not difficult is it!To be fair, people can be wary of a play on words.Remember Whyte last year?"I did not use money from future season ticket to buy the club!" he maintained that was true because the £1 use dot buy the club came out of his pocket, the season ticket money was only used to pay of the Lloyds debt.I dont believe that is the case with Green this time though. He is just watching his words because he doesnt want to be legally careless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEFTONG 60,190 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Im just about to leave for todays game, and I would like to see or hear a statement about todays board meeting made known to US the FANS.We are under attack for no other reason than, that we ARE Scotlands most Succesful Football Club and all our haters and detractors do not want us back LORDING it over them.... I look forward to the day that we get ALL these fuckwits back. And boy oh boy WILL WE CELEBRATE!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutonblue 1,974 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Dont bitei no swally, he is a bell end . obviously referring to his sheff utd days Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenosebrad 452 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Delighted to read this how much of a fanny does the so called Rangers fan holding the sign up saying Green out feel today Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.4f276fee3cffb56e2b865512f54b1ad4.jpg)
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.