forlanssister

Yes perish the thought someone else holds a different viewpoint from you eh?

What are you talking about then as it's not clear who put up what when is it?

You can't get any cheaper than free which what Green & Co originally planned with the inclusion of the prize monies and the transfer fees they would have obtained for those who invoked their right not to TUPE.

Much like we mistook his claim to be working for no wages to actually mean he was working for no wages,yet he was paid from day one according to the prospectus, silly us!

That's just the joy of youth, savour it while you can! The worst that will happen is you'll have internet egg on your internet face, not worth increasing your blood pressure for.

It is, but isn't it also supposed to work both ways?

Ah I get it now typical Rangers Media style posting? His style doesn't bother me much to be honest, but he has the right to put forward his views in the same way as I don't always agree with your own views I think the site is all the better for the fact that you're fee to post them.

Proper grammar and correct spelling?

See post #165!

I think you miss the point. Your claim that "without real reason or evidence" implies that those who remain sceptical of Green are doing so out of mischief and nothing else. My own sceptisim (and no doubt that of others too) is based on my own research of Green's record, it's out there if you care to look for it and is anything but stellar but if you have evidence of his prowess in the business world feel free to point me in the direction of it. As for "just a guess" that's just nonsense it's an informed opinion based on the available evidence, it's far easier to run with the herd than to take the time to find out for yourself. Far easier also to throw baseless "I told you so" accusations about rather than admit your own opinion can be fallible. Agreed but is that not in fact the point that those whose views are contrary to the majority are making? Or would you rather those whose opinions run against the grain not just f*&k off?

Fair point but there is a tendency (not restricted to here) to pounce upon those who don't buy into the cult of Green & Co much like there was shown towards those who disagreed that Whyte was the second coming and similarly those who thought Duff & Phelps were at it.

It's not dependent upon promotion at all.

http://pfascotland.co.uk/2012/news/s...e-award-claim/

Or 1 league reconstruction!

About as clear as it can get: Sone Aluko ‏@sonealuko I DONT have nor am I interested in slightest in any claims/tribunals and any other scenario of that nature against anyone. Not my style! Retweeted by Frankie Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

An expensive luxury we could easily manage without.

They most certainly were not. All that was on show was a copy of a receipt for a Stamp Duty Land Tax payment which never in a million years could be considered "Title Deeds". If you don't believe me then ask Frankie or Bluedell that were at that meeting too.

I see no reason at all for DM Hall not to have viewed the deeds, I cannot for the life of me seriously believe that there was no information more current than 1988 to assist them in their valuation, in 1988 Edmiston House would have formed part of the property of RFC at Ibrox, that ceased to be in 2002. Valuations normally contain an element of arse covering but this takes it and turns it into an art form. Whether you like it or not that valuation from DM Hall is a massive red flag, there's no doubt BDO will be checking it's contents against the contents of the valuation done on behalf of Duff & Phelps.

Not on their Ordinary Shares though.

You should be of sufficient intelligence to work that out for yourself. There's a wee clue in the fact that those who did the valuation do not know for sure what exactly they placed a valuation on!

Has the appearance of a power grab by the PFA. Though it's probably in the longer term interests of the players and the clubs to have a definitive legal decision on what the legal implications are in regards to this matter as it doesn't appear to have been tested in regards to football previously.

F*&k me, you think it's irrelevant what the deeds say?

If you read the prospectus you'll note that the property valuation from DM Hall comes with the rather bizarre caveat that they formed their opinion without having sight of the deeds. Some pretty large assumptions in there, and given previous claims it seems strange that they (Green & co) didn't take this very simple opportunity to put the claims to bed forever, it begs the question why not?

If you've read the prospectus and came to that conclusion I'd find it difficult not to concur. More akin to not proven.