kuznetsov 0 Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 its almost as if he wants us to run at a loss in year one. any financial whizzkids any ideas why? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,083 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 But things like the Tannadice boycott and the refusal to acknowledge the kangaroo court have seemed fairly box clever to me. Why do you think we're know being represented at the said kangaroo court now? Would it be because Green was given legal opinion that his strategy was utterly self defeating and doomed to fail by in fact giving our enemies an open goal? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Why do you think we're know being represented at the said kangaroo court now? Would it be because Green was given legal opinion that his strategy was utterly self defeating and doomed to fail by in fact giving our enemies an open goal? Sorry? The RFFF challenge is for after any title stripping. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) It is indeed, but prior to the share issue Green was saying that none of the money raised would be used for working capital, so it's essentially another contradiction as ComeOffit points out. I'm not entirely sure he said that, just that it wasn't needed to keep us afloat. I can't see what comeoffit says. Edited January 24, 2013 by simplythebest 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,083 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Sorry? The RFFF challenge is for after any title stripping. It's not, it's for the kangaroo court. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 It's not, it's for the kangaroo court. That's not what I picked up, anyone care to settle? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,083 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 That's not what I picked up, anyone care to settle? The first piece of good news is that Rangers will now be represented at the tribunal. Charles Green has quite rightly taken the view that this tribunal has no authority or relevance to the new company running the club and under the terms of insolvency obligations it was always unlikely that the old company would defend the charges. This is because the liquidators cannot be seen to spend money on legal action which brings no benefit to the creditors. However, the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund (RFFF) have now stepped into the grey area in which the SPL have been trying to operate and have agreed that they will underwrite the legal costs of a solicitor and a QC to attend the tribunal and fight the charges. It had been thought that the RFFF statement made last week involved costs for a subsequent legal challenge but the funds are being used to fight these charges at every step. This is a big leap forward because the SPL lawyers, Harper MacLeod, have been relying on the fact that nobody would be present to challenge their ridiculous assertion that Rangers have been â??cheatingâ?. This is actually a better use of funds than not engaging in the process and subsequently appealing though I still think the club should be picking up the tab. It seems that despite Greens bluster and bravado on the matter legal opinion and common sense has prevailed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 This is actually a better use of funds than not engaging in the process and subsequently appealing though I still think the club should be picking up the tab. It seems that despite Greens bluster and bravado on the matter legal opinion and common sense has prevailed. I'm afraid I disagree, there will be no hint of a fair trial in this. Waste of time and possibly money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,083 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I'm afraid I disagree, there will be no hint of a fair trial in this. Waste of time and possibly money. On the contrary appealing after the fact would be a waste of both time and money, whilst being represented legally at the hearing would be a far more productive use of time and money. This has been pointed out to Green and that's the reason for the volte face , just admit it Green called this one wrong... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 On the contrary appealing after the fact would be a waste of both time and money, whilst being represented legally at the hearing would be a far more productive use of time and money. This has been pointed out to Green and that's the reason for the volte face , just admit it Green called this one wrong... As with the transfer embargo i believe only a court of law will give us a fair hearing. 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.