simplythebest 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 The commission meets on the 29th, it has never gone away. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 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. That statement would have no legal standing though. It makes not a jot of difference who pays for the legal bills to defend the assets. Any opposing party would be laughed out of the hearings if they suggested that just because you arent paying to protect your own assets that you should lose them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 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. I just have one question here.... has Charles Green actually come out and said that he wouldnt fund a fight to protect our titles ? Seems to me that the RFFF have made their own statement, of their own volition, and it is being turned into Green refusing to pay for the legal costs to defend those titles. He hasnt said ANYTHING on this matter yet as far as I can tell yet we have a bunch of people bashing him about it. How do ANY of us know, one way OR the other, that he hasnt went to the RFFF (or plans to) to say "Thnaks for the offer, but this is our issue so we will deal with it and pay for it". I am not saying this is what will happen but surely we are being a bit premature in bashing Green on this issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I'm not having a go at green. what be said about the investment. was clever and correct. i just think the rfff got this a little wrong. partly because of greens stance. But you arent having a go at the RFFF in this thread, you are bashing Green. How does that compute ? 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 I personally' date=' wouldn't have advocated the whole issue being resurrected GS[/quote'] no me neither. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 But how is the issue being resurrected when, as STB says, that the panel ARE convening whether we like it or not. The issue has never gone away. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 But how is the issue being resurrected when, as STB says, that the panel ARE convening whether we like it or not. The issue has never gone away. Indeed, the FTTT result may have eased some of the criticism but if it had that big an effect on this commission it would have been cancelled. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Indeed, the FTTT result may have eased some of the criticism but if it had that big an effect on this commission it would have been cancelled. Exactly, and that is why we must very much keep our eyes on the ball here - there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that title-stripping is the ultimate goal of this commission. 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 But you arent having a go at the RFFF in this thread, you are bashing Green. How does that compute ? I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on what I said. especially my op. perhaps I have been dragged of topic if so I appologise. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTP 0 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I think the statement from the RFFF was more about intent than actually saying we are paying for this. I don't think there is any harm in this. Our enemies know that not only the club will fight them, but the fans will fight them also. 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.