Jump to content
pozbaird

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Big Hoose Guy has passed on, how is the "bennett" account still posting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. emoji848.png

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 by bennett
Predictive thingy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...