AllyDawson72 213 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 - I still think it should be considered though; although it may be nothing but absolute bollox (here's hoping) I distinctly remember 2 years ago when talk of Administration etc was looming, those people that were saying such things like:"We're to big to go into Administration""It'll never happen, We're Rangers""No one will let this happen to us"but yet, 2 years later, we're on a journey back to the top flight because it did happen. I still don't think it's right to just simply wave things off as pish, without first actually considering it, I mean why's no one hammering down Graham Wallace's throat right now asking where he plans to find investment? Why's no one pounding him with questions about why he's rejecting millions from Dave King?Exactly. How we can just dismiss this as tarrier scaremongering is astounding! Especially when the main source is from a bear who has put millions into us before. I personally don't think it will happen as I trust Wallace but I won't drop dead in shock if it did either. Amazes me how complacent our support are around this Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskbankloyal 19,446 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 jackal would have been better employed reporting the real story today, Oldco v Collier Bristow in the RCOJ London.Which has just ruled that evidence from Charlotte Fakes is admissible in court... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cushynumber 25,178 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Which has just ruled that evidence from Charlotte Fakes is admissible in court...really? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iang2911 423 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 really?TheLawMan on here is over the moon :-)He has said all along that he thought the content was true Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskbankloyal 19,446 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 really?Yup Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMccoist 204 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 MrMccoist. In defence of Bawsburst (I can't believe I said that) unfortunately many people have NOT drawn a line after the AGM. They have just changed their line of attack. I too can feel passionate about what I perceive to be be moves by fellow bears which are not in the best interests of Rangers. However I do agree that he should temper his language a bit.All he seems to do is attack fellow bears or the "rebs".He really needs to get a life.Nuff said. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 TheLawMan on here is over the moon :-)He has said all along that he thought the content was true Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDIGNITY 33,709 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 But but we were told mid feb was meltdown time, now its the end of feb, then mid march, then April, then may, you see where this is going............Anytime this year is the new 48 hours ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawsburst 1,381 Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Which has just ruled that evidence from Charlotte Fakes is admissible in court...And ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 And ?Well it wasnt even admissible in here for quite a while! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddistonKnight 1,572 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Why do we not sell out Ibrox every other week. Brings in more money, keeps the club going.Just a thought...................... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawsburst 1,381 Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Well it wasnt even admissible in here for quite a while!I see you have decided you knew it is/was true all along in another thread, I will hold fast on laughter until the first mention of clip art in the proceedings.....and it will be mentioned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarkev 3,540 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Exactly. How we can just dismiss this as tarrier scaremongering is astounding! Especially when the main source is from a bear who has put millions into us before. I personally don't think it will happen as I trust Wallace but I won't drop dead in shock if it did either. Amazes me how complacent our support are around this Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I see you have decided you knew it is/was true all along in another thread, I will hold fast on laughter until the first mention of clip art in the proceedings.....and it will be mentioned. Im slightly worried that you are aware of the line of defence that craig whytes chums are planning on taking?Gives an even more sinister slant to your true identity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskbankloyal 19,446 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Im slightly worried that you are aware of the line of defence that craig whytes chums are planning on taking?Gives an even more sinister slant to your true identity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawsburst 1,381 Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Im slightly worried that you are aware of the line of defence that craig whytes chums are planning on taking?Gives an even more sinister slant to your true identity.I sense the building disappointment of yourself and one or two others, clip art as used by whyte to knock out creative invoices and docs while in the Ibrox boardroom is very very public knowledge. Strange you would refer to Oldco as whytes chums, very strange. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcb 1,167 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Im slightly worried that you are aware of the line of defence that craig whytes chums are planning on taking?Gives an even more sinister slant to your true identity.More sinister than JI ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKIP BEAR 370 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 As some on here may know,i was a staunch supporter of the req's.But DK ought to give mr.wallace his 120 days. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I sense the building disappointment of yourself and one or two others, clip art as used by whyte to knock out creative invoices and docs while in the Ibrox boardroom is very very public knowledge. Strange you would refer to Oldco as whytes chums, very strange.What are you banging on about?The oldco are the ones who have introduced the CF docs as evidence. They are hardly likely to do this, then try to prove it is fake.The defendants in this case are Collier Bristow, not oldco. It is their defence tactic you seem to be predicting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Rangers will either run out of money at the end of the month ( or the end of next month) or they wont.Aye ok Kieth, stunning journalism right there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 What are you banging on about?The oldco are the ones who have introduced the CF docs as evidence. They are hardly likely to do this, then try to prove it is fake.The defendants in this case are Collier Bristow, not oldco. It is their defence tactic you seem to be predicting. Im not sure he knows himself what he thinks this time round. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbyloyal84 130 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 it might be this month or it might be next month or it might not be at all and they call this journalism?? what a crock of shite Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawsburst 1,381 Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 What are you banging on about?The oldco are the ones who have introduced the CF docs as evidence. They are hardly likely to do this, then try to prove it is fake.The defendants in this case are Collier Bristow, not oldco. It is their defence tactic you seem to be predicting.You appear confused, Oldco requested the tapes which even Stevie Wonder can see have been doctored, CB have requested all CF to be admissible Oldco objected on the grounds of legally privileged content, Judge suggests legally privileged content be redacted and all are happy.Why wouldn't they wish to prove them fake, fakes blow CB and whyte out of the water and out of court, job done....perhaps CB being successful would be your chosen outcome.As stated elswhere a Scots Law Lord has already sent them homewards tae think again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCDBigBear 10,862 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 As stated elswhere a Scots Law Lord has already sent them homewards tae think again. Elsewhere , you have 2 cases mixed up though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawsburst 1,381 Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 The cases may have common denominators but they are still separate issues. I am not referring to the Ticketus claim against oldco which was the ruling to which you refer. Ticketus have a separate issue with Whyte in which they have won a ruling in spring 2013 and also they won the appeal in late autumn 2013. These two rulings were against Whyte for his initial borrowing of the money which the High Court Judge ruled as having been fraudulent. That case was for a ruling on whether or not Whyte owed Ticketus for the millions which he borrowed. He owes Ticketus the millions plus interest and costs.Elsewhere , you have 2 cases mixed up though.Nothing is mixed up, the ticketus thread runs through all. 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.