Their Master’s Voice

By

Ally added …. “‘His total contempt and total lack of respect …

Comment on Their Master’s Voice by newtz.

Ally added ….

“‘His total contempt and total lack of respect for the Rangers players and for Scottish football is an embarrassment.'”

newtz Also Commented

Their Master’s Voice
newtz says: August 3, 2013 at 6:55 pm

Explosive Post Match Conference :
BBC … from reporter Charlie Mann

“Ally McCoist does not want Charles Green back in Scotland. Ally McCoist was asked if he would go to the airport and pick Charles Green up and he said: ‘No chance.’
——————————————————————————–

Different wording from different reporters …… LOL
mine was direct from BBC live streaming …… and have screen captured it …. just incase

Still there as reported live ……
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23560247
scroll to 18:31 …. classic !


Their Master’s Voice
Explosive Post Match Conference :
BBC

Here’s more from reporter Charlie Mann from that explosive Rangers media conference, where Ally McCoist has responded to pre-match criticism from Charles Green. The former chief executive has returned to the club as a consultant and demanded that McCoist’s side win a cup trophy this season in addition to the League One title.

“Ally McCoist does not want Charles Green back in Scotland. Ally McCoist was asked if he would go to the airport and pick Charles Green up and he said: ‘No chance.’

“He was hugely disappointed. He said the players were sitting in the breakfast room this morning when they were hit with this story. He says, as team talks go, Charles, this was not your best.

“He said it was a terrible situation for Rangers players to be in this afternoon and he says it did contribute to this defeat.

“He said it was no surprise to him that Charles Green has come back today when they were at their most vulnerable and weakest and that it was no surprise that he has surfaced once again after 34,000 Rangers fans have bought season tickets.”


Their Master’s Voice
Steerpike says:August 2, 2013 at 11:28 pm

what is relevant is if the debt to Liberty Corporate is listed in the D&P accounts as a liability, and I don’t believe it is, I think some one may have noticed.
The bottom line is D&P do not accept the claim made by Liberty Corporate
————-
Sorry Steerpike ….. thats a very strange answer …. you come across as knowlegable, and I think you are …. but either you are tired, or are going into deflection mode ……. what claim ?
Sorry but will have to disengage for now !


Recent Comments by newtz

Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!
Exiled Celt says: (800) November 18, 2013 at 3:42 pm
————————————————————————
Sensible to flag any intrusion, esp after a download. Gives others clear warning to check and others with strong security to look closer and check / report.
Have caught a few after folllowing links to RM (Tut Tut), and was able to warn.
Cheers
Hey, Happy 800 …


Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!
Exiled Celt says: (799) November 18, 2013 at 3:20 pm
————————————————————————

Have checked with ESET Smart Security 4 (Bus edition) and latest signature database …
Performed new scan … just in case ….
All looks fine

newtz


The Immortality Project
@Eco, Neep 100BJD others

Just want to cover off the Novation discussion ….. postedd back in Aug
I have often referred to the document in question as the Patrick (Cannon) Doc(s) of FFW
I have oft goaded Charlotte into releasing this document or surrounding corresponadance …. Not a Peep !
Why ?
————
newtz says:August 16, 2013 at 6:27 pm

Castofthousands says:August 16, 2013 at 1:52 am

newtz says: August 15, 2013 at 11:55 pm
“……. ….. … … …. .. …. ….”
————————
You refer initially to Clause lA.2 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. I had a quick skim of Charlotte’s version but couldn’t spot this clause. What page is it on?
——————————————————————————

Ah ha ….. you won’t find it CoT because that snippet is direct from the Regan letter to MM in response to CG letter …..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/160457671/SFA-reply-to-RIFC

So that tells us that there is an seperate SPA between RFC(IL) and Sevco Scotland ….. indeed Regan states such … and he has extracted a key statement for us …..

that Sevco 5088 Limited assigned to Sevco Scotland Limited “its whole right title and interest in and to the Offer Letter”

It’s starting to unwind at last …..

There would have had to have been a high burden of proof to convince D&P that such an assignation could happen …… I repeat …… A high burden of proof ….. without D&P being exposed to claims of collusion in fraud ….

I suspect that the audio where we hear IA on the phone to Patrick (FFW) and describing to CW where to sign …. is the assignation document ….. I have previously called it the ‘Patrick doc(s)’ ….. Why is Charlotte NOT releasing it ?? …. CW must have been given/sent a copy ….. otherwise he is a complete idiot ….. so far he has proven he is not !

The suspicion arises then that there is a further doc/agreement protecting CW’s interests …….

—————————————————————————————————————————

Charlotte ……. this raises serious questions ………. are you protecting someones interests ?
You can clear this up with a simple response ….. if you do not have the doc then there will be correspondance relating to it …….. yet nothing ………… or have we still to get to the Nuclear exit !

Or just tell me i’m …….. Wrong !
——————————————-

Another point I have been wanting to make …..
In all of the documents we have had sight of including Prospectus and interim accounts etc …. we seethe statement regarding Novation to Sevco Scotland, Not Once was the £NIL consideration mentioned. …… !!!
Slipping it in now does not quell the questions surrounding this … is it to cover the CW/AE claim ….. it won’t wash !


The Immortality Project
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:September 13, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Exactly.
I meant to edit the prev post to include the date…. 29/5/2013

What/who exactly are they hiding ? ………..

@BRTH …. just a question …
What if any single beneficiary holds greater than 10% … ?


The Immortality Project
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:September 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm

Ok, got it.

The number ties with the Oct filing which groups all shares alloted and ties in with the IPO doc.(I believe)
No change then.Still does not answer the original point ….


About the author