The Dude 20,027 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Taken from CF but anyone any ideas who the above are? Seems they got 2 payments (possibly refunds) of 180k & 120k in december 2012.http://www.scribd.com/doc/172464409/RefundsI Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 charlottefuckingfakes again , expected more from you Dude Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,027 Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 charlottefuckingfakes again , expected more from you DudeYou're one of the few then. Tbh. I have not a fucking clue whats half of this shit means. I just want my club back where it belongs. As much as we don't like CF and what they are doing, if its pertinent to the club then its something which should be looked into. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1mgg 3,766 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Taken from CF but anyone any ideas who the above are? Seems they got 2 payments (possibly refunds) of 180k & 120k in december 2012.http://www.scribd.com/doc/172464409/RefundsIUse google and you will find out, but you may have already made up your mind, and you will not find out what the fee was for.I think we should be turning our attention to who is leaking all this info. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,027 Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 Use google and you will find out, but you may have already made up your mind, and you will not find out what the fee was for.I think we should be turning our attention to who is leaking all this info.Had a google, didn't see anything that mentioned him in any capacity linked to Rangers. All I seen was that he was CEO of Eurovestech.My minds not made up, hence why its not a thread making baseless accusations but one looking for further information?I might not find out what the fee is for but then again you never know what will be leaked next.We should but in all honesty theres absolutely nothing that I'm in a position to do which will uncover the mole. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippo94735 1 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Had a google, didn't see anything that mentioned him in any capacity linked to Rangers. All I seen was that he was CEO of Eurovestech.My minds not made up, hence why its not a thread making baseless accusations but one looking for further information?I might not find out what the fee is for but then again you never know what will be leaked next.We should but in all honesty theres absolutely nothing that I'm in a position to do which will uncover the mole.My guess is that he or Eurovestech were initial investors at £1 per share - this was the payment to give them parity with the IPO price Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarkev 3,540 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 You're one of the few then. Tbh. I have not a fucking clue whats half of this shit means. I just want my club back where it belongs. As much as we don't like CF and what they are doing, if its pertinent to the club then its something which should be looked into.How can you take anything off there as a discussion point? It is an account that actively tries to damage the club and the person behind it hates our club.....it seems to me that some are getting so desperate in their attempts to undermine the board and the accounts they are willing to lower their standards on sourcing information to try and suit their argument! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Army 4,146 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 All these papists really do get worked up about Charlotte Fakes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elephants stoned 2,994 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 I thought the mhanky bitch had deleted all the documents and shut down because of the police investigation? If so wheres all these new bits coming from? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,027 Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 How can you take anything off there as a discussion point? It is an account that actively tries to damage the club and the person behind it hates our club.....it seems to me that some are getting so desperate in their attempts to undermine the board and the accounts they are willing to lower their standards on sourcing information to try and suit their argument!Where is anyone on this thread trying to undermine the board? I asked a question regarding a piece of information that was posted online by CF. What argument am I trying to make it suit? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,027 Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 My guess is that he or Eurovestech were initial investors at £1 per share - this was the payment to give them parity with the IPO priceCould be wrong but the figures seem a bit too rounded for that Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,027 Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 All these papists really do get worked up about Charlotte Fakes.Papists? Where? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarkev 3,540 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Where is anyone on this thread trying to undermine the board? I asked a question regarding a piece of information that was posted online by CF. What argument am I trying to make it suit?I was posting in a generic sense but why are you using Charlotte fakes as a source for your question? Seems odd that on the day the accounts are published and chris graham showed his true colours by advertising the twitter account of someone who actively tries to damage our club that you are using the same source material? Phil 3 names posted the other day that Saturday was a bigoted spectacle does that mean its true or worthy of discussion? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,027 Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 I was posting in a generic sense but why are you using Charlotte fakes as a source for your question? Seems odd that on the day the accounts are published and chris graham showed his true colours by advertising the twitter account of someone who actively tries to damage our club that you are using the same source material? Phil 3 names posted the other day that Saturday was a bigoted spectacle does that mean its true or worthy of discussion?No it wouldn't as I am informed well enough of the situation to form my own opinion. Personally I've never hears of Eurovesteach or Bernstein so thought I'd ask the countless business gurus and financial whizzkids we have on here. One other wee thing, just because you don't like the source it doesn't mean they can't get things right from time to time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippo94735 1 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Could be wrong but the figures seem a bit too rounded for that£1m in - £300k out - seems a perfect fit! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarkev 3,540 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 One other wee thing, just because you don't like the source it doesn't mean they can't get things right from time to time.I'm not disputing that, however how can you apportion any credibility to a source that actively tries to damage our club and openly hates us? The fact some people are now highlighting this source to me seems desperate after the accounts have been published and they are willing to lower themselves to these standards to continue their own argument (agenda).... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,027 Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 I'm not disputing that, however how can you apportion any credibility to a source that actively tries to damage our club and openly hates us? The fact some people are now highlighting this source to me seems desperate after the accounts have been published and they are willing to lower themselves to these standards to continue their own argument (agenda)....Because the source has been right on some things, wrong on others and to be honest I couldn't care less if they don't like us. There are guys who do like us who are wildly wrong regularly. Should they be viewed as credible solely because they are bears? Quote Link to post 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.