Frankie 8,570 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Is that the blog by the guy who pretended to be some Irish MMA fighter? Strange bloke who seems to spend most of his time abusing and insulting our own. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
union 0 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I don't know who he is,however his blog is borne out by the TOP ruling concerning King,it makes for very uncomfortable reading and is scathing about King's conduct with particular regard to NOAL and the contradictions.Not good at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,570 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I think the providence of such blogs is important. If the writer is a known liar who abuses and insults our own then just how credible are his blogs? Clearly I have no issue with questions being asked of King or anyone else but as we've seen in the past with McMurdo, John James and this Davy catfish fella, I'd rather people knew what they were clicking on when it comes to such stuff. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Page 36 sub 108. Thanks. The wording is strange. Why would the Takeover Panel Hearing Committee use "apparently" about the Takeover Panel Executive's actions. Why would they not be able to say definitively what they did and who they spoke to? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I am shocked by the allegations in the link given as they are said to be fact from the TOP investigation,if indeed the allegation that fans groups knew of these circumstances and had been interviewed in relation to such and kept it from members is totally unacceptable. https://t.co/4CAMX4bKvC never a Rangers supporter.....one of Ashley's mouthpieces....probably McMurdo or his protige Ninjaman 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
union 0 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Thanks. The wording is strange. Why would the Takeover Panel Hearing Committee use "apparently" about the Takeover Panel Executive's actions. Why would they not be able to say definitively what they did and who they spoke to? I am afraid I can't help you as to the wording of the TOP ruling,as far as I can see it is the official TOP ruling document,I am open to correction of course. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I am afraid I can't help you as to the wording of the TOP ruling,as far as I can see it is the official TOP ruling document,I am open to correction of course. Yeah, I wasn't aiming the questions at you. They were more general questions, that I doubt anyone would be able to answer. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I couldn't care less how KIng saved us from Ashley making out like it's a big thing..........duh! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,747 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 You still get the feeling that some folk assume that King is running Rangers in a similar way as SDM did. I wouldn't be surprised if he leaves his current chairman's job to someone else of the Three Bears and simply stays a director. As for the allegations, people like King, Desmond, Ashley, Murray and Co. become as rich as they are not solely because they have a fine nose for their respective business, but being as smart and cynical as e.g. the stereotyical J.R. Ewing. In one way or another. Unless you are just smart and develope something like whatsapp and sell it for 4bn. So I do not expect a white knight on a shining horse with regards to either of the aforementioned. What I do expect is that all these chaps are dealt with in the same manner - and that, in Scotland, simply isn't the case. It makes an "interesting" read, but there it stops. Not least if you are hardly in a position to verify all info given. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
union 0 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Yeah, I wasn't aiming the questions at you. They were more general questions, that I doubt anyone would be able to answer. On reading it again it would appear that the answer lies in the very first paragraph, This Panel Statement sets out the Hearings Committee's Ruling of 5 December 2016 which was appealed to the Takeover Appeal Board ("TAB") and which is the subject of TAB Statement 2017/1 issued on 13 March 2017. It is now being published in accordance with paragraphs 6.5 and 6.8 of the Hearings Committee's Rules of Procedure. 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.