Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Putting John James aside for a just a minute... Why wasn't this sold out match v 'The' Rangers played? Why did the police cancel it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: Putting John James aside for a just a minute... Why wasn't this sold out match v 'The' Rangers played? Why did the police cancel it? So that 5 years later you could have a fest over it, noticed tho you posted that it is RFC and not Sevco 5088 as you stated earlier..progress is slow but you are getting there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 A quick Google search shows the game did go ahead and had an attendance of 2300. It was a Rangers select team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, The White Ceelo said: So that 5 years later you could have a fest over it, noticed tho you posted that it is RFC and not Sevco 5088 as you stated earlier..progress is slow but you are getting there ? Nope. I posted it 'The' Rangers (which was Sevco 5088) because that's what's on the programme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 10 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: If Rangers have an 'unbroken' history, then why was the sold out Stefan Winiarski Testimonial with 'The' Rangers not allowed to take place? And why did the friendly in Normandy have to also be cancelled? And why could Sevco 5088 only play behind closed doors at Murray Park at the time? https://johnjamessite.com/2017/07/31/a-new-season-of-lies-treachery-deceit/ So how many teams are you quoting here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, The White Ceelo said: A quick Google search shows the game did go ahead and had an attendance of 2300. It was a Rangers select team Why was the game not played on July 25th, 2012? Why was the match postponed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Probably snowing knowing Kelty, don't know why but I'm sure you have a theory...my guess was the police were concerned about the number of fans of the new club were going to turn up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 1 minute ago, The White Ceelo said: So how many teams are you quoting here? Just the one. Sevco 5088 trying to pass themselves off as 'The' Rangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: Just the one. Sevco 5088 trying to pass themselves off as 'The' Rangers. You seriously need to lie down pal.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 22 minutes ago, The White Ceelo said: Probably snowing knowing Kelty, don't know why but I'm sure you have a theory...my guess was the police were concerned about the number of fans of the new club were going to turn up. Sevco 5088/'The' Rangers weren't registered to play as a football club. They were a new business that weren't afforded such status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: Sevco 5088/'The' Rangers weren't registered to play as a football club. They were a new business that weren't afforded such status. Your work here is done ???, now away and show your disdain to the RBS or BoS seen you are only concerned about the of field antics of Rangers and their monetary affairs. The Rangers football club did however never miss a season in Scottish football Edited August 1, 2017 by The White Ceelo Nono Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 They have. They stopped playing when Rangers International was introduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 43 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: Sevco 5088/'The' Rangers weren't registered to play as a football club. They were a new business that weren't afforded such status. Correct. They didn't have a licence to play professional football. They were a brand new club and had not yet been licenced by the SFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 52 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: They have. They stopped playing when Rangers International was introduced. There is absolutely no help for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Ceelo Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Stu101 said: There is absolutely no help for you Don't worry mate, he will be on to gloat when all his subscription money to the begging John James comes to fruition and through the power of blogging to the completely obsessed manage to get "Sevco 5088" closed down for good. Now I know where Scotty gets all his ammo from..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 John James is definitely one of my sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: John James is definitely one of my sources. You source is this guy ?? !! https://johnjamessite.com/ 'Should readers turn up to find that John James is conspicuous by his absence they will know those from the UDA/UVF who have been trained to kill and now hold leading position in The Orange Ordure, have tracked me down. One group plan to burn me alive using a tyre as favoured by the Mexican drug cartels. Their apologists will come on this site and cry foul. But make no mistake these individuals are obsessed with thoughts of my demise. Sooner or later they will get to me. Prior to this eventuality I will shine as brightly as possible.' HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Think that says all need to know about you, Edited August 1, 2017 by Stu101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 15 minutes ago, The White Ceelo said: Don't worry mate, he will be on to gloat when all his subscription money to the begging John James comes to fruition and through the power of blogging to the completely obsessed manage to get "Sevco 5088" closed down for good. Now I know where Scotty gets all his ammo from..? Scotty was given a link to Companies House and all the various documents from the administration- with the relevant dates. He has been pointed to the various paragraphs in the Supreme Court and various Court of Session rulings, setting out the legal position. Yet, Scotty doesn't believe any of this. Its all a conspiracy to him. He believes John James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, Stu101 said: Think that says all need to know about you, That the truth hurts and that he's definitely ruffling some feathers? 2 minutes ago, Stu101 said: Scotty was given a link to Companies House... I've asked you to explain how it proves what you contend, but I haven't heard back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: I've asked you to explain how it proves what you contend, but I haven't heard back. You need to read through the documents- starting at the incorporation ones. The information is all there - it was referred to in the various legal cases. I'm not doing your work for you. Happy to link to the Court of Session and Supreme Court paragraphs though, if that makes it easier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: That the truth hurts and that he's definitely ruffling some feathers? I've work in law for over ten years now. A large amount of that time has been involved with insolvency and restructuring. I know how the law works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 I did it in couple of sentences... 3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: Sevco 5088/'The' Rangers weren't registered to play as a football club. They were a new business that weren't afforded such status. 3 hours ago, ShedTA said: Correct. They didn't have a licence to play professional football. They were a brand new club and had not yet been licenced by the SFA. Couldn't you do similar (with all of your experience and knowledge)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: I did it in couple of sentences... Couldn't you do similar (with all of your experience and knowledge)? Not sure if this was directed to me or not, but this will get you started. Note the courts distinction between 'owner' and 'club'. Note what is 'Sevco'. Note who has the membership. http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 "In respect of the 2012/2013 season, the team commonly called ‘Rangers Football Club’, now owned and operated by The Rangers Football Club Limited (formerly called Sevco Scotland Limited), applied to and was permitted to join the lowest division of the SFL as a new Associate Member of the SFL. Sevco Scotland Limited was admitted as an Associate Member of the SFL and its football team, Rangers FC became entitled to play in the third division of the football league of the same name. The SFL was, at that time, organised in three divisions. I understand, (but was not present when it was decided), that the members of the unincorporated association which was the SFL, when admitting Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member, determined that its team, Rangers Football Club would commence to play in its third division i.e. its lowest division from which it would be eligible to compete for promotion at the end of each successor season.” (“The five way agreement”)." If you cant follow this, then I'm sorry, I cant help you any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Stu101 said: Not sure if this was directed to me or not, but this will get you started. Note the courts distinction between 'owner' and 'club'. Note what is 'Sevco'. Note who has the membership. http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 "In respect of the 2012/2013 season, the team commonly called ‘Rangers Football Club’, now owned and operated by The Rangers Football Club Limited (formerly called Sevco Scotland Limited), applied to and was permitted to join the lowest division of the SFL as a new Associate Member of the SFL. Sevco Scotland Limited was admitted as an Associate Member of the SFL and its football team, Rangers FC became entitled to play in the third division of the football league of the same name. The SFL was, at that time, organised in three divisions. I understand, (but was not present when it was decided), that the members of the unincorporated association which was the SFL, when admitting Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member, determined that its team, Rangers Football Club would commence to play in its third division i.e. its lowest division from which it would be eligible to compete for promotion at the end of each successor season.” (“The five way agreement”)." If you cant follow this, then I'm sorry, I cant help you any further. There's no point in providing evidence to Scotty. He's a creationist so actual facts that counter his blind faith just don't cut it. Blind is the operative word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Stu101 said: Not sure if this was directed to me or not, but this will get you started. Note the courts distinction between 'owner' and 'club'. Note what is 'Sevco'. Note who has the membership. http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 "In respect of the 2012/2013 season, the team commonly called ‘Rangers Football Club’, now owned and operated by The Rangers Football Club Limited (formerly called Sevco Scotland Limited), applied to and was permitted to join the lowest division of the SFL as a new Associate Member of the SFL. Sevco Scotland Limited was admitted as an Associate Member of the SFL and its football team, Rangers FC became entitled to play in the third division of the football league of the same name. The SFL was, at that time, organised in three divisions. I understand, (but was not present when it was decided), that the members of the unincorporated association which was the SFL, when admitting Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member, determined that its team, Rangers Football Club would commence to play in its third division i.e. its lowest division from which it would be eligible to compete for promotion at the end of each successor season.” (“The five way agreement”)." If you cant follow this, then I'm sorry, I cant help you any further. OK, so how does that prove that Sevco 5088 didn't play in the Ramadan Cup v Brechin City on July 29th, 2012? 19 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said: There's no point in providing evidence to Scotty. He's a creationist so actual facts that counter his blind faith just don't cut it. Blind is the operative word. My faith in creation would be observable. Observable being the operative word. "For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20 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.