Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This story is way bigger than the court case that's running just now. It's a really worrying development in terms of freedom of the press.

The Herald have been "leant on" and two problematic journalists have been dumped.
Now I am first to admit Haggerty's association with the horrible Phil McGhiollabain is something I find personally distasteful but that does not alter the fact that she is a decent journalist and her Sunday columns were generally well crafted pieces.

This smacks of Rangers flexing their muscles and taking out a journalist who with good reason after many personal attacks from their troglodyte fans, holds them in contempt.

It is one thing journalists being biased to a football club as with the weegie tabloids but it's quite another the directors of a football team exerting influence on a paper's editorial decisions. The fact that one football club can wield this sort of power and influence over a media outlet is something I find deeply troubling.

[Prof. Shaggy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How so?

Responsibility for the content of the paper is integral to the definition of editor. If it's published in the paper it is either endorsed by the editor or he/she resigns (in circumstances like this).

The fact that the editor has not resigned indicates he endorses the apology.

[Treadstone]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Judge asks if a hypothetical was embezzling funds from a company would that be seen as having occurred "in the course of his duties.

That line from the judge was funnier than a whole series of Miranda.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What exactly was she sacked for? Surely she has some kind of unfair dismissal case.

Pretty sure she'll be freelance, so there won't be an unfair dismissal case. She may have a claim for breach of contract, though.

[Ozyhibby]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...w-with-rangers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Apologies, can't copy tweets this afternoon. Sounds like a better day for Green so far though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[s.a.m]

https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/herald-c...-of-columnist/

[Bostonhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This could be embarrassing for New Hun having to argue in court that they are nothing to do with Old Hun.

Scotland and its football needs this one on record in a court so it can finally decide what to do with this national embarrassment hiding behind a football club, got to be easier if the old one is formally dead and the relevant history is voided.

[CropleyWasGod]

Walker (for RIFC) says court must distinguish between crimes carried out for personal gain as opposed to seeking an advantage for his employers.

Walker says Green's case is "not even close to the line" of consideration. Notes alleged crimes happened before he became CEO

Lord Malcolm asks if Green was not the "embodiment" of Rangers as CEO.
Walker disagrees

Walker says he disagrees Rangers knew legal action was likely to be taken against Green when agreement signed

Walker says "no-one could have contemplated picking up the tab for this sort of crime."

Charles Green used the same firm of solicitors as Andy Coulson to draw up indemnity agreement court hears

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Apologies, can't copy tweets this afternoon. Sounds like a better day for Green so far though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Further discussion of the criminal charges by Rangers' QC relating to the scope of the indemnity clause.
Rangers QC says the clause must require more than Green simply to have been in office at club in order to cover him.
Rangers QC argues the clause has not been designed to cover indemnity for criminal acts.
Judge continuing point on Green perhaps being "embodiment" of Rangers. For example, he would represent club at SFA.
Judge "thinking aloud" asks if there is distinction between alleged crimes to benefit company or to benefit individual with regards clause
Judge: Suppose he had tried to bribe an opposition goalkeeper. That wouldn't fall within duties of a chief executive of a football club.
Rangers QC advancing point of distinction between committing a crime for a person's own benefit or for benefit of company in his duties.
Plenty hypothetical back and forth now between judges and Rangers QC over situations where indemnity would or wouldn't apply.
Rangers QC now discussing elements of the criminal allegations.
Rangers QC argues that it is too simplistic simply to look at the alleged crime. It is important to take all conduct into consideration.
Rangers QC now debating the construction of the clause in the compromise agreement.
Court resumes. QC for Rangers now outlining the position of the defendants in the Charles Green legal fees appeal

[CropleyWasGod]

Why would anyone want to take on a liability for someone elses negligence? Walker asks the court.

Walker says that the indemnity clause "does not use clear words"

Walker moves on to an area covered by reporting restrictions.


Over to you, Grunt.... I have a last-minute Tax Return to do :)

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What exactly was she sacked for? Surely she has some kind of unfair dismissal case.

If she was freelance she's f***ed.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Scotland and its football needs this one on record in a court so it can finally decide what to do with this national embarrassment hiding behind a football club, got to be easier if the old one is formally dead and the relevant history is voided.

Careful what you wish for. The company that owns Hibs was incorporated in 1905.

[Bostonhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why would anyone want to take on a liability for someone elses negligence? Walker asks the court.

Walker says that the indemnity clause "does not use clear words"

Walker moves on to an area covered by reporting restrictions.

Interesting one, this is what businesses normally have professional Indemnity, Fidelity guarantee and Directors & Officers insurance cover for - I suspect in this case no underwriter would touch it, or the the rangers couldn't afford or didn't arrange the cover.

[Bostonhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Careful what you wish for. The company that owns Hibs was incorporated in 1905.

Fully aware, also left not much debt and no sectarian whiff

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fully aware, also left not much debt and no sectarian whiff

My point being... does that mean we have never won the wee Cup?

[grunt]

Wilson says Rangers football club is a "different entity" from the company.
Wilson now moves on to the nature of Rangers football club
Lord Malcolm notes that the original judgment "does not agonise on the nature of Rangers football club"
Lord Malcolm asks Walker if he is not concentrating too much on cronology rather than principle?

[grunt]

"I don't think this is going to work Mr Walker" judge tells RFC advocate
Walker says the club is the "trading entity"
Judge notes that the agreement says Green was CEO of "Rangers football club" not "Rangers football club ltd"
Lord Malcolm tells Walker "he cant have it both ways" leading to laughter in court
Wilson "in common parlance people do not talk about Rangers football club meaning Sevco Scotland"
Wilson says he does not accept "Rangers football club is a myth" but adds that "it doesnt matter" in this case.
Wilson 'there is a danger in lawyers trying to decide what a football club is" even though "this might he of great interest to the press"

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"I don't think this is going to work Mr Walker" judge tells RFC advocate
Walker says the club is the "trading entity"
Judge notes that the agreement says Green was CEO of "Rangers football club" not "Rangers football club ltd"
Lord Malcolm tells Walker "he cant have it both ways" leading to laughter in court
Wilson "in common parlance people do not talk about Rangers football club meaning Sevco Scotland"
Wilson says he does not accept "Rangers football club is a myth" but adds that "it doesnt matter" in this case.
Wilson 'there is a danger in lawyers trying to decide what a football club is" even though "this might he of great interest to the press"

Good work, sir.

For those reading, though, these Tweets should be read in reverse order.

[grunt]

Please note these tweet posts need to be read bottom up. (Damn!)

[Deansy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Blogger and columnist Angela Haggerty sacked by the Herald for supporting Spiers?

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/01...ilure-exposed/

'It will be interesting to see what the SPFL, the NUJ, Scottish PEN and the wider Scottish football community’s response is to this'


What the SPFL will do about it ??? Aha .... ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha - probably the same as they've done with EVERYTHING since the Hun were caught cheating - SFA !!

[Brightside]

Rangers QC refers to Wikipedia....

[grunt]

Walker says that when Green was CEO he made a "distinction between club and company" cites Wikipedia, Judge says they can accept that
Lady Dorrian asks "why would they do that?" I can't answer that, Walker says, there are different people in charge now.
Lord Malcolm says Rangers only talked about two different entities 'so they could still say they won the league"

[Ozyhibby]

Just catching up. Does not appear to be going well for Sevco but judges are funny sorts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just catching up. Does not appear to be going well for Sevco but judges are funny sorts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.

I've ditched the Tax Return. This is great entertainment.

Is it due to be decided today?

[grunt]

Notes- these are now in order so can be read top down. Also I have changed to quoting Grant Russell - he seems to be clearer in his reporting.
----------------------

Rangers QC now moves on to argument over the interpretation of the term "Rangers" in this case

Rangers QC says there has been a consistent approach that reference to Rangers FC is a football entity and not a limited company

Rangers QC says there is a danger over lawyers trying to prove whether a club "exists"

Judge asks, for purposes of clause, whether it matters whether intention was Green was chief exec of "club" or "company"

Judge asks if club was owned by an individual person, you would talk about Rangers FC, not Joe Bloggs

Rangers QC says when people say Rangers, they aren't referring to a limited company

Rangers QC says he would not accept previous submission a club is a "myth"

Rangers QC says claimant position is Green was never chief exec of "club" as it never existed

Rangers QC says neither party claims Green was ever chief exec of the "club"

Judge says Rangers' argument over club v company indemnity coverage "isn't going to work"

Argument from Rangers here is that if "club" didn't exist, how could clause cover time prior to Green being an officer of a company?

Judge asks if Rangers ask if they should "just put a red pen through that part of the clause?"

Rangers QC argues indemnity intention did not define the limited company so that it covered Green in any action taken by a governing body

Rangers QC says Green, while in power, saw clear need to continually draw distinction between club and company

Rangers QC makes reference to ASA decision & LNS

Rangers argument therefore is that the indemnity clause did not make club v company distinction so frequently made in public statements

Judge says club didn't "spring to existence" on date of transfer in June

Rangers QC says it is important what parties who wrote clause defined Rangers as

Rangers QC again highlights the constant club v company distinctions made by club under Green, yet made no such distinction in clause

Rangers QC suggests a proof should be called so those who created clause can explain why they didn't make the distinction as per usual

Rangers QC says if court doesn't want proof, it is clear what those in charge meant

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree.

I've ditched the Tax Return. This is great entertainment.

Is it due to be decided today?

Not sure. Last time it took a couple of days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree.

I've ditched the Tax Return. This is great entertainment.

Is it due to be decided today?

Bugger I just read that bottom to top and it made no sense.

[ancient hibee]

Just to digress-this shows clearly the difficulty in the proposals for "fans" to own "clubs".

[grunt]

Rangers secretary James Blair interrupts QC to urge clarification that compromise agreement signed after Green stopped being chief of TRFCL.
Green, Rangers QC claims, stepped down as "Sevco" chief exec at same time he became RIFC chief exec in December 2013.
Judge hypothetically floats idea clause may not specifically state "limited" because Sevco company existed before it acquired "the club".
Judge says he doesn't like prospect of sending clause definition argument to a proof. Says they should be able to settle it themselves.
Judge says they seek definite confirmation of dates Green became/stopped being director, chief exec etc. To be supplied at later date.
Rangers QC concludes. Green QC requests to be able to make further comment.