Comment on Podcast Episode 1 by martin c.
February 10, 2014 at 6:59 pm
February 10, 2014 at 6:51 pm
0 3 Rate This
Very interesting meeting today. Rangers fans, 3 more wins in the cup and you CAN dig out your passport for next season.
Jack Irvine – Twitter
Think it’s a fake account but the bears on RM are lapping it up anyway
TAKEN FROM RM
For small measures that all add up to something huge, this phase is building into one of the most seminal in our entire history.
The prize of Europe, so soon after all the shit we have been through.
ALLY motivate them.
At the risk of lowering the tone but with all the that talk of seminal phases the fan who wrote may have creamed himself.
I’ll get my seminal vehicles (sic)
Podcast Episode 1
wrt to the Easdale “fee and no interest” on the half million, to my reading, The LSE announcement, there is no ambiguity, Easdale will pick up a fee for making the facility available. But should RIFC default then there will be no interest paid.
And if it comes to pass a bus depot on the southside of Glasgow!
It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Dave King did the same thing with the SA tax authorities, some sort of war of attrition where he seeks to muddy the water, seems he has spent a great part of his life embroiled in legal machinations. Why would you?
And a note to self this is not an appeal of the TAB, that process has been exhausted, it’s that I don’t want to comply with what I’m legally bound to, I could see TAB take inspiration from the SC EBT decision and let it go to the SC and a legal precedent is set?
Small Price to Pay?
Has Pedro even signed, still not in Scotland, nothing concrete and so much hype (again) for a manager from the outer limits of soccer
Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin
On The Rangers website for a recent charity fuction JT is in attendance. The body language is not relaxed. From the photographs its when MW is speaking.
Not just policing the pressers??(the best i could do for killer clown hysteria emoji)
Two wrongs and a right
what i am driving at is the separation of the crime and those who have committed the crime? e.g. my car is stolen, a person stands trial for the theft and found innocent, my car remains stolen.
Could we say now that a crime had been committed but those charged are innocent until proven guilty?
or are the two mutually inclusive a guilty verdict mean a fraud had taken place?
Two wrongs and a right
Here is a poser for the legal bods, if those facing charges are found innocent then has no fraud taken place?