Bobby Hume 13,424 Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Wonder if they will be going round the RSC's and spreading the word of David, and regaling everyone with stories of miracles they have witnessed and wonders they have seen, and, if they will only follow in the steps of David, the doors of the kingdom of Ibrox will be opened, and season tickets will be readily available to all who follow the gospel according to David.Or will they just be happy with a wee backhander (£700) for appearance money? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeWilson 4,670 Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 Nobody from UoF was on Clyde tonight.Probably a tim on the wind up.The guy was the second caller (after a Hibs fan) and they gave him a long time on the line.His name was Mark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293 Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Not that I'm in support of DK , although imo if he wants more support , he should start the ST Fund off by putting 5 million of his money in to show us all he means business ,so Dave over to you Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeWilson 4,670 Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 That scenario would leave the support divided forever.The thing that gets me is King was a director when Murray built up huge debts yet I can't remember him having any concerns for the fans or the club's future. Why did he not propose giving security to the season ticket holders then?Hugh Keevins asked the caller several times if Dave King was tainted by association by the old board.If I remember correctly he dismissed the link as being complete rubbish as it was a one-man-show at the time. David Murray and no-one else. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muirheadbear 1,483 Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Hugh Keevins asked the caller several times if Dave King was tainted by association by the old board.If I remember correctly he dismissed the link as being complete rubbish as it was a one-man-show at the time. David Murray and no-one else.Well the debt peaked at just over 80m at one point and by 2010/11 it was considerably down. He was associated with that reduction too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Fuck off ploooky cuntsEnd of statement Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Sheer desperation from the union of fuds.They have no cards get still think they can bluff.The board ain't giving them the time of day and they have said their scheme will disband without it. So why keep trying other than to save face.They need to face it. They are dead in the water. Sunk.No matter if they get more pledges than an alkies convention they still go nowhere.Even King has gone quiet.Wheeling out old punters to try and give their scam credibility gas been done so many times now it is more of a red flag to fans than encouragement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeIsBlue 66,654 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 2 managers? Eck will be one, I wonder who the other is?Souness Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewhitesettler 2,712 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Are the ex players & managers backing Kings trust, because the present board are stopping the 'Gravy train'?Or is it because they genuinely believe in DK? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerGer 69 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 We've had fewer managers in our whole 142-year history than West Brom have had in three years in the English Premiership.That's incredible.It's also a load of crap! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 So, he would still be legally bound to distribute the money back to fans.Remember, it would only kick in through a admin event.Just saw this from last night.Mm you are wrong on this. Ibrox 1972 Ltd is not set up as a trust in any way. King is a shareholder and director of that new company. If any first charge was assigned to it, HE would have control of it and zero legal obligation to pass it to anyone. I have read the UoF entire page and this is the basic truth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeWilson 4,670 Posted May 9, 2014 Author Share Posted May 9, 2014 It's also a load of crap! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZZed 4,510 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Dave King was proven to be a devious, manipulative liar in a court of law. Would you trust him with Rangers; I would not, as I view him as another Craig White. Anyone who believes what mendacious Dave says needs sectioned under the mental health act as they have demonstrated no capacity to think about the facts and are vulnerable to manipulation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,997 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Anyone know when the u of f..... will be unveiling all the ex players & managers who are supporting them ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser1041 9,088 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Anyone know when the u of f..... will be unveiling all the ex players & managers who are supporting them ?when they find some mate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Just saw this from last night.Mm you are wrong on this. Ibrox 1972 Ltd is not set up as a trust in any way. King is a shareholder and director of that new company. If any first charge was assigned to it, HE would have control of it and zero legal obligation to pass it to anyone. I have read the UoF entire page and this is the basic truth.Basic consumer protection overrules this. If a service is set up and you pay into it to get security on the ticket, it would be against the law to then with old these funds.King would control the security, but the proceeds of the activation would have to be passed over. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Basic consumer protection overrules this. If a service is set up and you pay into it to get security on the ticket, it would be against the law to then with old these funds.King would control the security, but the proceeds of the activation would have to be passed over.Sorry, wrong. The money paid in by the punter is to get a ticket. Nothing more. The company is trying to get security. There sis nothing in any contract between the punter and Ibrox 1972 Ltd which says the contract holder has a share of any security.For this to be the case there would either have to be a financial transaction (which there is not) or the Ltd company would have to actually be a trust.Wonder why King has not set it up as a Trust???? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,997 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 when they find some mate.I hope you are correct, but King & Gough (especially) will have been pals with a lot of them and that is why I thought there might be some truth in the story. I sure hope I have got that horribly wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Sorry, wrong. The money paid in by the punter is to get a ticket. Nothing more. The company is trying to get security. There sis nothing in any contract between the punter and Ibrox 1972 Ltd which says the contract holder has a share of any security.For this to be the case there would either have to be a financial transaction (which there is not) or the Ltd company would have to actually be a trust.Wonder why King has not set it up as a Trust????Wrong. The punter as you call them are to pay money to the Ltd company, not directly to the club. There is a financial transaction.Security is set up to ensure that creditors can recoup money owed to them. In an admin event, this money is owed to the LTD company, then the LTD company will then be laible to its own creditors or the punters.Basic consumer protection would indeed be valid in this case. It is not possible for King to just pocket the cash. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin 13,669 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 John Greig? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Wrong. The punter as you call them are to pay money to the Ltd company, not directly to the club. There is a financial transaction.Security is set up to ensure that creditors can recoup money owed to them. In an admin event, this money is owed to the LTD company, then the LTD company will then be laible to its own creditors or the punters.Basic consumer protection would indeed be valid in this case. It is not possible for King to just pocket the cash.Wrong. The t&CS state clearly that the contract is between the punter and the club.You should research first... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Wrong. The t&CS state clearly that the contract is between the punter and the club.You should research first...But the transaction being via the LTD company gives basic consumer protection against the funds realised by the security on the LTD comapny.If you buy a couch through a finance deal on a sofa for instance, you pay the finance company, but your consumer rights span both the finance company and the sofa company.If you have a faulty sofa, you deal with the sofa company, if you are entitled to a refund, the refund goes through the finance company.Believe it or not but the legal system does tend to work on common sence. It does not make sense for a company to get a value of security on something where they invested nothing into it. The people who funded the purchase ultimately recieve protection from the law. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 But the transaction being via the LTD company gives basic consumer protection against the funds realised by the security on the LTD comapny.If you buy a couch through a finance deal on a sofa for instance, you pay the finance company, but your consumer rights span both the finance company and the sofa company.If you have a faulty sofa, you deal with the sofa company, if you are entitled to a refund, the refund goes through the finance company.Believe it or not but the legal system does tend to work on common sence. It does not make sense for a company to get a value of security on something where they invested nothing into it. The people who funded the purchase ultimately recieve protection from the law.You are wrong. Look, Ibrox 1972 ltd would not be selling anything to the punter . They are in essence an escrow account for cash to be held for payment of st.The ltd company gets the first charge and that means the directors/shareholders of that ltd.The only contracts in place would be between the punter and the club for st, and Ibrox72 and the club for first charge.The only way for there to be protection of the punter is for Ibrox72 to be a trust, which it is not.And you have to wonder why it is not... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 You are wrong. Look, Ibrox 1972 ltd would not be selling anything to the punter . They are in essence an escrow account for cash to be held for payment of st.The ltd company gets the first charge and that means the directors/shareholders of that ltd.The only contracts in place would be between the punter and the club for st, and Ibrox72 and the club for first charge.The only way for there to be protection of the punter is for Ibrox72 to be a trust, which it is not.And you have to wonder why it is not...If they market LTD company as a way of securing the money of the fans, consumer protection steps in and gives the fans protection.If you are absolutely convinced I am wrong, please raise your concerns with the authorities, as it would be a potential fraud matter and would certainly merit the authorities issuing a statement warning the punters. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 If they market LTD company as a way of securing the money of the fans, consumer protection steps in and gives the fans protection.If you are absolutely convinced I am wrong, please raise your concerns with the authorities, as it would be a potential fraud matter and would certainly merit the authorities issuing a statement warning the punters.There is no fraud as no money has been taken nor would be until first charge passed. At that point there would certainly be a case to investigate.Consumer protection only applies of there is a contract between punter and company. There would not be one here. They even say this in the t&cs.It is simple. If first charge were passed, King would hold the charge over the stadium at zero cost or risk to himself.To hold it in trust, Ibrox72 would actually have to be a trust.And I ask again, why us it not? A trust is the perfect setup for what is being attempted and promised. If you intend to fulfil the promise of course.A Ltd company however only protects the shareholders, not anyone else. 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.