I'm sure on the day 2 bit the misleading statement was addressed by someone. Whoever it was said that because the £5m wasn't relevant to the case it didn't count as perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Printable View
I'm sure on the day 2 bit the misleading statement was addressed by someone. Whoever it was said that because the £5m wasn't relevant to the case it didn't count as perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Is asking your solicitor to
Lie on your behalf perjury?
A cynic might suggest that dave king isn't the only glib and shameless liar in the ibrox boardroom these days after watching Paul Murray's interview there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Solicitors will not lie on behalf of their clients. To do so would be professional misconduct...... a solicitor is an Officer of the Court and as such is not permitted to mislead the court either deliberately or by omission.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaimendhibs
From a random Google of solicitor websites.
They do so on a daily basis and to pretend otherwise would be lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Cheers. Must be a mistake then😂😂Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://linkis.com/wordpress.com/jpuFq
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=Ozyhibby;4524754]http://linkis.com/wordpress.com/jpuFq
Great piece this we as fans need to put pressure on our clubs to ask questions.
It's definately time to focus our attention on the people who run Scottish football instead of this relentless campaign to grind The Rangers into the ground.
Simply put a person commits perjury when they wilfully and unequivocally make a false statement while giving evidence in any judicial proceedings, this may be by way of oath or affirmation. Essentially a person must make a statement that they know to be false and it must be made according to their will (i.e. someone who makes a statement that turns out to be false recklessly or unkowingly would not have committed perjury.
No way the Solicitor could be done for perjury.
Be great if we could do bothQuote:
Originally Posted by flash
It's possible,and you can still find time to make it awkward for the yam to bury their murky past as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
On FF, they're discussing the pace of progress and how there might not be the huge amount of money for players in January which King promised. They keep questioning the £30m pound warchest etc. but nobody over there has even questioned whether King could take £30m oe even less out of Sth. Africa.
Over the last 5 years the Rand has gone from 10 to the £ to 22.5 so whatever his wealth was it is now more than 50% less in £ terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Who knows what he has in real cash and where it's stashed? However, nobody has really clarified whether he can take cash out of SA or not. Can he?Quote:
Originally Posted by ano hibby
What is pleasing is that a couple of months ago, the muppets were cockahoop about everything, great manager, great team and knights in shining armour throwing cash at Warburton in January but some are beginning to have doubts and they are starting to argue among themselves about their situation. Cracks in the dam and all that.
Pretty clear from that interview that Dave Kings millions are gonna remain Dave Kings millions, Murray said what King had actually meant was investing 20 million over a long 'unspecified' period .... talk about being vague. When he said over invest, he obviously meant the fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If I was a Currant Bun I would be decidedly underwhelmed by what Murray had to say, from where they were going to get money from to see out the season, to Warburton's January war chest ...... Murray was tepid & lukewarm on every subject.
The man obviously doesn't get irony. In the same breath as he was saying "we have to listen to the fans" he said the stripping of titles was not an option as far as Sevco are concerned ...... tell ya what mate, why don't you ask the fans you are suddenly so keen to have listened to and see what they have to say about it.
I wonder why he was at Netherdale, I hope the Huns aren't looking for a ground share with Gala Fairydean Rovers when Ibrox gets repossessed or falls down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
(i) A tax-payer in good standing and over the age of 18 years, can invest up to R10 million in his/her name outside the Common Monetary Area (CMA-Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia), per calendar year. A Tax Clearance Certificate (in respect of foreign investments) must be obtained. These funds may not be reinvested into the CMA countries thereby creating a loop structure or be re-introduced as a loan to a CMA resident. (ii) In addition, up to R1 million, within the single discretionary allowance facility, can be transferred abroad, without the requirement to obtain a Tax Clearance Certificate.
10m rand is less than £500,000. In any case, the first sentance disqualifies King from moving significant cash abroad. I don't mean to harp on about this, but a lot of the muppets think that King is keeping his powder dry before coming up with his 'over-investment'. By not divulging their warchest funds they think other clubs will not ask for extortionate money for all the stars they are going to buy in January and summer. They're in for a big disappointment.
King's deal with the South African tax people also compelled him to repatriate all of his assets back to SA in order to avoid 82 years in jail. Can't see them letting him take cash out now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
'Is the money there for Mark Warburton in the January transfer-window ?' - 3 minutes and 8 seconds later - 'There is a WILLINGNESS to fund Mark should he decide he needs to add to the squad'Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Bit of a slow drift from the 'over-investment' days, eh ??
Anyway, must go as I have a WILLINGNESS to win tonight's lottery and to do that, I need to go get the money out to buy the tickets ........
It's an interesting point so I looked up the world authority on definitions, lies and exaggerated numbers - the Hibs.net Yamasauras but even allowing for the similarities between the clubs there wasn't anything helpful so I am going to take a stab at the definition here and say that a long unspecified period = at least 20 million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
So he wasn't lying.
They won't be buying anyone in January if what I hear is correct.
They are going straight to liquidation and there will be no The The Rangers.
:confused: So there will be another phoenix club called The The The Rangers? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Obviously they will be a brand new debt free one but the SPFL will allow them to retain all the honours won by the now defunct Glasgow rangers and The rangers(?) whilst simultaneously reassuring us that all the sectarian bile has gone away?
The new off the radar wealth owner will be Donald Trump.
The only thing that would make sense in all that is the Donald buying the club, and banning muslims from signingQuote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
Heard a rumour and it is probably bull but here goe's anyway...
The Rangers did raise the 5 Million to pay of SD, but just before they went to pay it a Mr Green put a spanner in the works by lodging an appeal against a court case that went against him.
The Rangers have had to keep back £400,000 legal fees plus another £100,000 for the appeal fees in case it's over turned.
The other £4.5 million will then be set aside for Mr greens fee's if he wins.
Now I'm not sure about these figures etc but the person telling me is adamant its gospel. Also said that The Rangers will listen to all offers for players in January because they need to get wages down.
GGTTH
That would explain their media talking (so very, very much) of increasing the SPL to 14 - 25 pts deduction for admin would still see the Hun qualify for at least the play-offs wouldn't it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Maybe Celtic will throw them some change to speed their return to the OF duopoly ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Liquidation is a big call but makes sense to ditch the debt (again) but surely means that they cannot start again as the same club unless there is more SFA/SPFL fancy footwork.
In any case reconstruction surely cannot be in place for next season, so they could be looking at yet another season in Championship unless they overcome the 25 point deduction (if they are the same club), or they are back to bottom tier again, which should mean Lowland League, never mind Div 3.
Interesting times unless King or some of his cohorts suddenly come up with wads of cash. Mr Ashley, anyone...................?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
They don't have a lot of debt, all of which would be adequately covered by the assets. In that light, I think liquidation is unlikely.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Not sure it would. At one point last season a 25 point penalty would have put them on the edge of the relegation play offs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
CWG
When I was talking about writing off debt I was meaning potential liabilities for all the cases pending. Am I right in saying that none of these potential liabilities would be met if verdicts went against them? Surely liquidation would make sense given that scenario?