crucible 0 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 more likely a refusal to comply with a legal request from the rangers board given recent history. but we shall see. Have they or not secured names, statement is crystal clear that they claim to have done so. Murray and Mccoll's legal team have also secured the identities of the figures behind Blue pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings, they will be revealed by tomorrow. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Murray also revealed his legal team has secured permission to burst open the secrecy behind the club’s mysterious investor groups, Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings. It’s expected the paperwork, which should confirm the identity of the anonymous moneymen behind both camps, will be handed over to Murray and McColl’s lawyers by tomorrow. indeed it does seem clear. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 so either the club have failed to complie with the companies act as outlined by forlan or murray is keeping the info up his sleeve for whatever reason. my bet is on non compliance give the boards previous for this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1mgg 0 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Or possibly they can't find any dirt on the people behind these groups, or they aren't the people they thought were behind the groups. It is easier and works to their advantage if they keep the names secret if they can't find any dirt on them, and keep the rumours circulating that is is Craig White that owns both holding. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 so either the club have failed to complie with the companies act as outlined by forlan or murray is keeping the info up his sleeve for whatever reason. my bet is on non compliance give the boards previous for this. OK got you now, they the requisitioners despite claiming they have the names don't have the names at all as the board failed to reveal them, so they lied ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 i think the article is perfectly clear they didn't have the names yet. but hey ho if this is all you have to cling to. go for it. it's better than i'm frightened of the truth which was yesterdays excuse. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Could this have a possible massive anti-climax? We get the names and then ask, "who the hell are they?" As suggested by a previous poster, any nefarious, anti-Christ type figure could hide behind a nominee. I thought that before but then had the companies act thrown at me so now not so sure. Tried to read that but man that is dull, soporific stuff. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Or possibly they can't find any dirt on the people behind these groups, or they aren't the people they thought were behind the groups. It is easier and works to their advantage if they keep the names secret if they can't find any dirt on them, and keep the rumours circulating that is is Craig White that owns both holding. so what's the rivizi article about then? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Could this have a possible massive anti-climax? We get the names and then ask, "who the hell are they?" As suggested by a previous poster, any nefarious, anti-Christ type figure could hide behind a nominee. I thought that before but then had the companies act thrown at me so now not so sure. Tried to read that but man that is dull, soporific stuff. reads to me that anyone with 10% shares can get all the info they want on other shareholders legally. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 i think the article is perfectly clear they didn't have the names yet. but hey ho if this is all you have to cling to. go for it. it's better than i'm frightened of the truth which was yesterdays excuse. What frightens me is the lengths people like you are prepared to go too in pursuit of a moot point, endangering the club in the process and without a care about possible consequences. If the OP is misleading in its very clear statement as to names, admin should change it. 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.