the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Sorry FS and GS, your attitudes on this really come across as if you have serious issues with Green. If you disagree with the decision of The RFFF committee then you could debate that but the immediate need to try and bring Green into a decision that has very little to do with him seems to show a bit of an obsessive attitude. but it was greens own standpoint. how can we go to court and argue that the SPL are devaluing the assets when the other lawyers is saying but your not even paying to try and keep them. greens defence of them was that they were his assets. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 but it was greens own standpoint. how can we go to court and argue that the SPL are devaluing the assets when the other lawyers is saying but your not even paying to try and keep them. greens defence of them was that they were his assets. If you go to court against someone but I give you the money to pay for it would you expect it to influence the case, get a grip GS and stop trolling. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) If you go to court against someone but I give you the money to pay for it would you expect it to influence the case, get a grip GS and stop trolling. if my case is built on how much it means to me and i have the cash but don't pay then yes. its like sending your mate along to a custody battle to tell the judge how much you miss your kids. Edited January 18, 2013 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 if my case is built on how much it means to me and i have the cash but don't pay then yes. its like sending your mate along to a custody battle to tell the judge how much you miss your kids. Rubbish, how much something means to you means nothing in a court of law it's about the facts plain and simple. Have you ever heard a judge say well your innocent but you don't seem to bothered so I will send you down just for the Hell of it, and in a custody battle what if your Mum & Dad pay your costs does make you less of a father. You really need to stop looking for faults with Green the mans not bulletproof he has made plenty of mistakes no need to try and find one that isn't there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Rubbish, how much something means to you means nothing in a court of law it's about the facts plain and simple. Have you ever heard a judge say well your innocent but you don't seem to bothered so I will send you down just for the Hell of it, and in a custody battle what if your Mum & Dad pay your costs does make you less of a father. You really need to stop looking for faults with Green the mans not bulletproof he has made plenty of mistakes no need to try and find one that isn't there. as i and others say. if his defense is i paid for the assets and the value of my assets is affected if you remove some of them he should be paying any legal costs to defend them. that seems pretty straightforward to me but clearly you disagree. fair enough. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 as i and others say. if his defense is i paid for the assets and the value of my assets is affected if you remove some of them he should be paying any legal costs to defend them. that seems pretty straightforward to me but clearly you disagree. fair enough. His defense will be what it is for all of us, that the whole thing is a farce. The value of assets thing is simply another motive. Again are you expecting him to come out and say no thanks to the RFFF? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 There's nothing else left to fight that requires funds. This is it. We gave our money to fight so let's see the money used for what we intended it to be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 There's nothing else left to fight that requires funds. This is it. We gave our money to fight so let's see the money used for what we intended it to be. Oh but no, it should be given to charity instead... (Again that's nothing against charity btw). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Oh but no, it should be given to charity instead... (Again that's nothing against charity btw). I know mate! Fucking charity indeed. There's one last fight and we all paid up for such an eventuality, well before Green came on the scene. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 There's nothing else left to fight that requires funds. This is it. We gave our money to fight so let's see the money used for what we intended it to be. Im not convinced of that Cotter. For instance how about employing a professional lobby group to push for an enquiry into HMRC and their dealings with our club ? But that's not the core issue here. The titles are of concern to everyone - no doubt. But they are also the property of Charles Green (viz his company with controlling interest of Rangers) - I cannot see why it would not be his responsibility first and foremost to pay for the defence of his investment. When he eventually comes to sell the company he will be selling those titles to the new buyer. 0 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.