WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 What's the script with this guy? I started following him on Twitter a while ago and lasted maybe a week. His blog seems interesting enough providing it isn't made up pish. Is it worth keeping up to date with this guy or is he simply, shall we say "rhabid" Rhadio Rhental more like. Can be entertaining, though. I believe[mention=36489]bennett[/mention] helps fund him, just for the lols. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Fcuk, Normans appeared! Evil must be afoot... -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 If Big Hoose Guy has passed on, how is the "bennett" account still posting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 On 13/12/2017 at 08:52, nsr said: If Big Hoose Guy has passed on, how is the "bennett" account still posting? Bennett is an AI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 10 hours ago, Insaintee said: Bennett is an AI Without the I. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 My paper of choice The Daily Mail 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5192509/Steven-Naismith-willing-make-Rangers-return.htmlForget using the old club dying to walk away as a free agent. You get your snout right back into that trough, before it all goes tits up again, Wee Naisy![emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 My paper of choice The Daily Heil FTFY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Rangers owner Dave King loses £11m court case as judge rules in favour of Takeover Panel Today's decision at the Court of Session potentially plunges the Rangers owner into a major cash crisis as King’s lawyer previously told Lord Bannatyne the entrepreneur was “penniless”. 10:43, 22 DEC 2017Updated10:54, 22 DEC 2017Sport From today’s Daily Rectum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said: Rangers owner Dave King loses £11m court case as judge rules in favour of Takeover Panel Today's decision at the Court of Session potentially plunges the Rangers owner into a major cash crisis as King’s lawyer previously told Lord Bannatyne the entrepreneur was “penniless”. 10:43, 22 DEC 2017Updated10:54, 22 DEC 2017Sport From today’s Daily Rectum Maybe he could work some sort of deal where someone fronts him some cash using future season ticket sales as security? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Florentine_Pogen said: Rangers owner Dave King loses £11m court case as judge rules in favour of Takeover Panel Today's decision at the Court of Session potentially plunges the Rangers owner into a major cash crisis as King’s lawyer previously told Lord Bannatyne the entrepreneur was “penniless”. 10:43, 22 DEC 2017Updated10:54, 22 DEC 2017Sport From today’s Daily Rectum BBC weighing in to... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42454416 This is a great opportunity for Sevco. King buys out existing shareholders for £11 million. These good loyal men and women demand a new shares issue and feed the £11 million right back into the club! All that is required to make it work is honesty and goodwill on all sides. Sorted! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 ^^^Richard Wilson at the BBC right now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Can't be true. SFA said he was Fit and Proper. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 TAB made the following finding at paragraph 84: “… it is clear from the evidence set out in ‘Reasons for conclusions’ below that it was Mr King who communicated with Mr Letham, Mr King who decided on the quantum of price of the share purchases, Mr King who contacted Cantor Fitzgerald to affect the purchases and Mr King who-within a day of the decision-caused his family trust to pay for the shares and put them into the name of NOAL. … in this case, over and above the presumption and the deeming, the contemporaneous evidence makes it plain that neither NOAL nor the family trust had any active role in the acquisition of the shares.” (emphasis added). [111] The above I believe sets out the effective de facto control that the respondent exercises in respect to the Trusts. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Lord Bannatyne’s decision is interesting reading, in essence calling the Glib and Shameless Liar a.......err.......liar. [emoji848] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 TAB made the following finding at paragraph 84: “… it is clear from the evidence set out in ‘Reasons for conclusions’ below that it was Mr King who communicated with Mr Letham, Mr King who decided on the quantum of price of the share purchases, Mr King who contacted Cantor Fitzgerald to affect the purchases and Mr King who-within a day of the decision-caused his family trust to pay for the shares and put them into the name of NOAL. … in this case, over and above the presumption and the deeming, the contemporaneous evidence makes it plain that neither NOAL nor the family trust had any active role in the acquisition of the shares.” (emphasis added). [111] The above I believe sets out the effective de facto control that the respondent exercises in respect to the Trusts. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Could someone sound the Quantum klaxon?I fcuking love quantums. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Could someone sound the Quantum klaxon?I fcuking love quantums. Quanta, shoorely ?? [emoji41] 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mps02 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Oh boy, this is going to be fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Here we go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 30 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said: TAB made the following finding at paragraph 84: “… it is clear from the evidence set out in ‘Reasons for conclusions’ below that it was Mr King who communicated with Mr Letham, Mr King who decided on the quantum of price of the share purchases, Mr King who contacted Cantor Fitzgerald to affect the purchases and Mr King who-within a day of the decision-caused his family trust to pay for the shares and put them into the name of NOAL. … in this case, over and above the presumption and the deeming, the contemporaneous evidence makes it plain that neither NOAL nor the family trust had any active role in the acquisition of the shares.” (emphasis added). [111] The above I believe sets out the effective de facto control that the respondent exercises in respect to the Trusts. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0 QUANTUM - One of my favourite words makes a welcome return with its concomitant hilarity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said: TAB made the following finding at paragraph 84: “… it is clear from the evidence set out in ‘Reasons for conclusions’ below that it was Mr King who communicated with Mr Letham, Mr King who decided on the quantum of price of the share purchases, Mr King who contacted Cantor Fitzgerald to affect the purchases and Mr King who-within a day of the decision-caused his family trust to pay for the shares and put them into the name of NOAL. … in this case, over and above the presumption and the deeming, the contemporaneous evidence makes it plain that neither NOAL nor the family trust had any active role in the acquisition of the shares.” (emphasis added). [111] The above I believe sets out the effective de facto control that the respondent exercises in respect to the Trusts. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Lord Bannatyne’s decision is interesting reading, in essence calling the Glib and Shameless Liar a.......err.......liar. Bloody hell Flory you're keen. Anyway I reckon he'll sell his shares now (if that's permitted), really no other option now. P.s the whole new oasis.../king thing was a nonsense, obviously the courts wouldn't buy it. Edited December 22, 2017 by bennett Predictive thingy -2 Quote Link to comment 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.