Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[hibs0666]

Where are you quoting from?

Lord Nimmo Smith judgement, February 2013.

[jacomo]

Where are you quoting from?

This is from the Nimmo Smith judgement. Which treated the EBTs as separate to the players' employment contracts.

This has now been widely discredited as a political fudge. The 'common sense' judgement on BTC says that these EBTs were used to pay the players as part of their contract.

[jacomo]

Lord Nimmo Smith judgement, February 2013.

You beat me to it!

:aok:

[hibs0666]

If above correct - no reason to doubt - the recent court ruling (subject to SC appeal) has blown it out the water and is now open to scrutiny and legal process.

Its out now and every one involved will be running for cover. The severest penalty must be imposed and until then, there is no way I'm moving on and forgetting the antics of Rangers Football Club!

How much more severe can you get than putting the club into liquidation plus potential jail time for many of the actors involved?

[hibs0666]

This is from the Nimmo Smith judgement. Which treated the EBTs as separate to the players' employment contracts.

This has now been widely discredited as a political fudge. The 'common sense' judgement on BTC says that these EBTs were used to pay the players as part of their contract.

The question that was raised concerned player registrations, and I don't see how that particular part of the LNS judgment is affected by the big tax case judgement.

[CropleyWasGod]

How much more severe can you get than putting the club into liquidation plus potential jail time for many of the actors involved?

Putting Rangers into liquidation isn't an option. That could only happen as the result of commercial factors.

[HappyAsHellas]

How much more severe can you get than putting the club into liquidation plus potential jail time for many of the actors involved?

Nobody "put" them into liquidation, that was self inflicted due to their rather illegal financial goings on. Anyone found guilty of breaking laws normally finds themselves in court, so again, nobody "done" this to them. They have knowingly cheated every other team in the land for a decade or so totally aware of their actions. Perhaps you think Stefan Klos would have signed without the £2,000,000 EBT? Personally I think there's no danger he'd have signed without it - the same goes for many others. We are talking about sporting integrity here - and our game needs cleaned up from top to bottom so the punter knows it's a level playing field.

[hibs0666]

Nobody "put" them into liquidation, that was self inflicted due to their rather illegal financial goings on. Anyone found guilty of breaking laws normally finds themselves in court, so again, nobody "done" this to them. They have knowingly cheated every other team in the land for a decade or so totally aware of their actions. Perhaps you think Stefan Klos would have signed without the £2,000,000 EBT? Personally I think there's no danger he'd have signed without it - the same goes for many others. We are talking about sporting integrity here - and our game needs cleaned up from top to bottom so the punter knows it's a level playing field.

OK, so the entity that cheated is no longer in being. What more are you proposing that we do to that entity in the name of sporting integrity?

[ano hibby]

He is not allowed to take money out of SA. It was part of his settlement with the revenue that all his money was brought back to SA and it stays there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok ta. So how did he think he could invest in The Rangers then if his wealth is land locked?

[jacomo]

The question that was raised concerned player registrations, and I don't see how that particular part of the LNS judgment is affected by the big tax case judgement.

Because Rangers were arguing that the EBTs were not used to pay players to play for Rangers. SDM just set them up to be nice, in the way a kindly uncle might set up a trust for his nephews.

This allowed LNS to fudge his judgement - yes, Rangers were a bit naughty in not declaring them (hence the fine) but they weren't gaining an unfair sporting advantage.

The BTC judgement exposes this all as patent rubbish. The EBTs were used to pay players for their services - 'common sense'.

[JeMeSouviens]

OK, so the entity that cheated is no longer in being. What more are you proposing that we do to that entity in the name of sporting integrity?

Void the titles they won whilst cheating. Simples.

[hibs0666]

Putting Rangers into liquidation isn't an option. That could only happen as the result of commercial factors.

Thanks for clarifying. The point remains that the cheating entity is no longer, and many of the principals involved are looking at jail time. Seems like a fair outcome for past transgressions to me.

[hibs0666]

Void the titles they won whilst cheating. Simples.

Anything but simples. For example does that mean that we have have to return payments for European performance to UEFA because one of our entrants was there illegally?

[Treadstone]

Judging by some of the tweets coming from journos this Chuckles v Rangers court case is a cracker.

[MrSmith]

OK, so the entity that cheated is no longer in being. What more are you proposing that we do to that entity in the name of sporting integrity?

Again, the new ruling (subject to SC appeal) has changed all this and we have to go back to fix the now and undo all agreements in principle. All of what was agreed previously, has to be scrutinised and the 'fudge' made transparent with those actors being jailed for fraud/misappropriation or whatever occurred. It needs done and if you think about this, Rangers fans would get a lot of closure and most probably their club back instead of the circus we have now. Getting Rangers back with a payment plan to pay off the tax/NI and the titles expunged would be most fitting and I for one, would welcome this turn of events.

Resurrect and make the original team before liquidation, accountable and responsible for their cheating while allowing them to start again in our leagues to wear the dishonour in order to prove they are sorry!

[Treadstone]

Anything but simples. For example does that mean that we have have to return payments for European performance to UEFA because one of our entrants was there illegally?

Who is 'we' in this instance?

[JeMeSouviens]

Anything but simples. For example does that mean that we have have to return payments for European performance to UEFA because one of our entrants was there illegally?

I doubt it, but the cheating is already established, so if they want to come after the money, what difference does it make?

[JimBHibees]

Who is 'we' in this instance?

:whistle::tumble::greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Thanks for clarifying. The point remains that the cheating entity is no longer, and many of the principals involved are looking at jail time. Seems like a fair outcome for past transgressions to me.

The only principal involved with the cheating entity facing jail time is Craig Whyte, and ironically enough he's the one that put a stop to the EBT cheating!

[Kato]

How much more severe can you get than putting the club into liquidation plus potential jail time for many of the actors involved?

Being liquidated wasn't a punishment. It was the natural result of spending way, way above their means and not paying their dues.

[Baldy Foghorn]

Thanks for clarifying. The point remains that the cheating entity is no longer, and many of the principals involved are looking at jail time. Seems like a fair outcome for past transgressions to me.

They dafties still believe they are the same club with the same history (A proud history and tradition, if you read their last statement saying that the SPFL should no longer have any further investigations).......... So easy, strip them of their "titles", remove all that proud history.....

Cheats plain and simple

[Ozyhibby]

Thanks for clarifying. The point remains that the cheating entity is no longer, and many of the principals involved are looking at jail time. Seems like a fair outcome for past transgressions to me.

Who is facing jail time from the EBT era? Enlighten me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

OK, so the entity that cheated is no longer in being

It is in being, merely in liquidation.

[Ozyhibby]

Judging by some of the tweets coming from journos this Chuckles v Rangers court case is a cracker.

They are venturing into Club/Company territory as a defence against paying Greens fees. They better be careful that the judge does not rule they are one and the same.
The Sevco QC has already had to explain to the judge that the Club is a continuous body that exists separately from the company. [emoji3] I can just imagine the judge looking over his specs at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibee87]

They are venturing into Club/Company territory as a defence against paying Greens fees. They better be careful that the judge does not rule they are one and the same.
The Sevco QC has already had to explain to the judge that the Club is a continuous body that exists separately from the company. [emoji3] I can just imagine the judge looking over his specs at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any links to where your geting this?

[Ozyhibby]

Any links to where your geting this?

Follow James Doleman or STVGrant on twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Wolffe for RIFC, cites Lord Nimmo Smith stating "The club has an existence independent of the corporate entity that owns it."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: Lord Doherty asks whether the club v company debate is one he can deal with without evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibee87]

Follow James Doleman or STVGrant on twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheers :thumbsup:

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: Lord Doherty: there are two arguments. It could be that the club is a club; or that it is a limited company


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Treadstone]

They are venturing into Club/Company territory as a defence against paying Greens fees. They better be careful that the judge does not rule they are one and the same.
The Sevco QC has already had to explain to the judge that the Club is a continuous body that exists separately from the company. [emoji3] I can just imagine the judge looking over his specs at that point.


That's what I'm taking from this so far. Seem at pains to point out the singular identities of club and company. They may tie themselves up in the legalese with nowhere to go when the judgement is passed. Interesting stuff.

[Ozyhibby]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/playing-catch-up-on-the-rifc-accounts/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibee87]

anyone care to explain in laymens terms what actually happening here, what is the case all about and what could the outcomes be :confused:

[Ozyhibby]

That's what I'm taking from this so far. Seem at pains to point out the singular identities of club and company. They may tie themselves up in the legalese with nowhere to go when the judgement is passed. Interesting stuff.

Charlie's QC starting now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

anyone care to explain in laymens terms what actually happening here, what is the case all about and what could the outcomes be :confused:

Green want Rangers to pay his legal fees, Rangers are saying No and that he worked for the company not the club and they are not liable. Or something like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

That's what I'm taking from this so far. Seem at pains to point out the singular identities of club and company. They may tie themselves up in the legalese with nowhere to go when the judgement is passed. Interesting stuff.

If they are successful in getting a legal agreement re club/company being totally separate then any arguments re "we've been punished enough" for the EBT stuff is blown out the water as there's been no sporting sanction applied for that as yet.... SO GET THOSE TITLES EXPUNGED!!! :cb

[JeMeSouviens]

Green want Rangers to pay his legal fees, Rangers are saying No and that he worked for the company not the club and they are not liable. Or something like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The clause in his settlement with RIFC says words to the effect that RIFC will pay legal costs resulting from his time as Chief exec of the club. So RIFC are trying to use the club/company distinction to say that the clause only applies to the period after the asset transfer from RFC plc (now in liquidation) to Sevco (now TRFC). Most of the charges relate to before that date.

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown says he will "come back to the whole Rangers Football club issue in some detail."

Brown is Charlie's QC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown says Charles Green "acquired the assets of Rangers for Sevco Scotland, which holds them to this day."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

@STVGrant: Lord Doherty: there are two arguments. It could be that the club is a club; or that it is a limited company


At this stage someone should text him JMS's succinct guide to the issue:


Rangers and the SFA would have you believe that some magic unincorporation happened to suck the ethereal rancid spirit of the Old Huns out of the company and deposit it alive and well into the new one. Whether you choose to believe that or not, up to you. :wink:

Just swap :wink: for m'lud and sorted.

[Treadstone]

If Chuckles is successful I'm sure a ringfencing of the money would be asked for. Would this be part of this judgement or a separate action needed ? I'm going for (a conservative estimate of) quarter of a million any advance on that ?

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown: If the charge against Green is proved "the business and assets [of Rangers] would be the proceeds of crime,"

1/2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown 2/2 "This would open the door for a claim by the liquidators on the assets."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Can't post any more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

@jamesdoleman: Brown: If the charge against Green is proved "the business and assets [of Rangers] would be the proceeds of crime,"

1/2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


@jamesdoleman: Brown 2/2 "This would open the door for a claim by the liquidators on the assets."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh oh! .... :devil:

[southern hibby]

Anything but simples. For example does that mean that we have have to return payments for European performance to UEFA because one of our entrants was there illegally?

Hibs0666,

Irrespective of how you see things or interpret it. Cheating is cheating.

Bottom line is if we do nothing then we will never clean up our game for the good of generations to follow us.
If nothing is done to Rangers ( not The Rangers that followed) then we can never ever trust this not to happen again.other teams have been punished and why not Rangers? Because they are now no more. If they are no more why does The Rangers claim to be the same club? Take away trophies ask the rangers if they are the same club and if they say yes then they must pay back the tax or be fined. If they say no then they can loose all their past trophies from the new Rangers list of winnings and let them start again.

Mate you can argue till your blue in the face but you will never convince me they've suffered. I've suffered more than they have. I spent money going to watch my team play against a team that couldn't afford the players they have against what we could afford to pay and constantly watched my team get humped by them as did supporters from other teams too. Sporting integrity my bum.
They knew exactly what they were doing they knew exactly why they were doing it and they did it end of. Time to pay for it.

GGTTH

[TrinityHibs]

Can't post any more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You cant stop like that OZy

[JeMeSouviens]

You cant stop like that OZy

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 7m7 minutes ago
Brown if Green was found guilty "The company would have big problems" argues sound commercial reasons for granting legal idemnity.

[Ozyhibby]

You cant stop like that OZy

Duplicate post problem. Will sort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seveno]

King is incredibly arrogant and self assured and expects to get his own way at all times.
Unluckily for him he's done the worst think possible in angering Mike Ashley, a man who could buy and sell him many times over. It's the equivalent of punching an angry grizzly bear.

Ashley will put Dave King in his place. Why? Because he can. And because he feels like it..

Your post makes me smile. A lot! :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 25s25 seconds ago
Brown says that when agreement was signed both parties were aware "there might be litigation over these matters"


Adjourned for lunch.

[Ozyhibby]

Brown says that when agreement was signed both parties were aware "there might be litigation over these matters"

Court breaks for lunch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seveno]

He is not allowed to take money out of SA. It was part of his settlement with the revenue that all his money was brought back to SA and it stays there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't Ashley suggest he has moved money to the UK in the guise of Ben Nevis Holdings ?

[southsider]

Thanks for the updates Ozy. This should really be on the telly.

[Ozyhibby]

Doesn't Ashley suggest he has moved money to the UK in the guise of Ben Nevis Holdings ?

It's possible, I struggle to keep up to be honest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Thanks for the updates Ozy. This should really be on the telly.

I thought about along today but I would probably end up on a contempt charge for giggling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrinityHibs]

Duplicate post problem. Will sort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JMS stepped in praise the Lord

[Seveno]

I thought about along today but I would probably end up on a contempt charge for giggling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Giggling? Don't you mean guffawing ?

[TrinityHibs]

Thanks for the updates Ozy. This should really be on the telly.

You're right South its great entertainment.

[Ozyhibby]

So we have a club playing in the SPFL who may be built on the proceeds on crime? And who's assets will revert to BDO should Charlie lose his case?
You would think Sevco would want him to have the best legal advice available unless it was all about short term cash flow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/12/02ca239e18ba512efc03794bef11dcb0.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

So we have a club playing in the SPFL who may be built on the proceeds on crime? And who's assets will revert to BDO should Charlie lose his case?
You would think Sevco would want him to have the best legal advice available unless it was all about short term cash flow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The liquidator could apply for the transfer of assets to be reversed. In other words, all of the assets would revert to him. He would then have to sell them off for the benefit of shareholders.

Taking that to its ultimate, if there was a surplus (which is possible, although unlikely), that would go to.... the shareholders, including Mr. Whyte :)

[Ozyhibby]

The liquidator could apply for the transfer of assets to be reversed. In other words, all of the assets would revert to him. He would then have to sell them off for the benefit of shareholders.

Taking that to its ultimate, if there was a surplus (which is possible, although unlikely), that would go to.... the shareholders, including Mr. Whyte :)

Even if Sevco win some of these individual battles, it's hard to see them surviving all of this intact. It's going to be very interesting watching it all pan out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibee87]

So the outcome of this court hearing is only to see if RIFC will pay greens legal fees, the decision on tweets 1/2 r.e proceeds of crime, will be heard another day :confused:

[Ozyhibby]

So the outcome of this court hearing is only to see if RIFC will pay greens legal fees, the decision on tweets 1/2 r.e proceeds of crime, will be heard another day :confused:

Yes, that was just Charlie's QC explaining what's at stake and why Sevco really need to pay his fees and be hoping he wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The liquidator could apply for the transfer of assets to be reversed. In other words, all of the assets would revert to him. He would then have to sell them off for the benefit of shareholders.

Taking that to its ultimate, if there was a surplus (which is possible, although unlikely), that would go to.... the shareholders, including Mr. Whyte :)

I'm hoping you are forensically examining Phil latest blog as it was way beyond my pay grade. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

So the outcome of this court hearing is only to see if RIFC will pay greens legal fees, the decision on tweets 1/2 r.e proceeds of crime, will be heard another day :confused:

Yes.

If Green & chums are found guilty in the upcoming criminal trial then that would open the door for yet another court action by BDO to lay claim to the assets (I think).

[portycabbage]

The clause in his settlement with RIFC says words to the effect that RIFC will pay legal costs resulting from his time as Chief exec of the club. So RIFC are trying to use the club/company distinction to say that the clause only applies to the period after the asset transfer from RFC plc (now in liquidation) to Sevco (now TRFC). Most of the charges relate to before that date.

So is the approach meant to be that when the assets passed to Sevco it became the club? But Sevco was started 3 years ago and is a company, whether or not it's considered a club as well, so I can't see how the club/company "distinction" works for RIFC here, unless they say Rangers are a new club. On the other hand, if Sevco/TRFC is the owner of the club, and the "club" is the essence, brand, history or assets which were transferred to Sevco, then I can't see how RIFC can claim it's the essence of Rangers that employed him, rather than a company ("essence of Rangers" -sounds like particularly bad aftershave).

I think the quote further back from Lord Doherty(?) (quoted by Ozy) that either the club is a club or it's a company, is an assumption in itself. It starts from the assumption that they're separate entities, rather than different parts of the same entity.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm hoping you are forensically examining Phil latest blog as it was way beyond my pay grade. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I missed it in the flurry of stenography from Perry Mason.

I'll have a look....

[Hibee87]

Yes, that was just Charlie's QC explaining what's at stake and why Sevco really need to pay his fees and be hoping he wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes.

If Green & chums are found guilty in the upcoming criminal trial then that would open the door for yet another court action by BDO to lay claim to the assets (I think).

Cheers folks, the thing i really don't get is the time scale here. The transfer of the assets being dodgy was raised all over the internet almost immediately when it happened 3 years ago. Why has it taken so long to go to court!! ach well, its funny seeing the dirtys squirm more and more each day :thumbsup:

[JeMeSouviens]

So is the approach meant to be that when the assets passed to Sevco it became the club? But Sevco was started 3 years ago and is a company, whether or not it's considered a club as well, so I can't see how the club/company "distinction" works for RIFC here, unless they say Rangers are a new club. On the other hand, if Sevco/TRFC is the owner of the club, and the "club" is the essence, brand, history or assets which were transferred to Sevco, then I can't see how RIFC can claim it's the essence of Rangers that employed him, rather than a company ("essence of Rangers" -sounds like particularly bad aftershave).

I think the quote further back from Lord Doherty(?) (quoted by Ozy) that either the club is a club or it's a company, is an assumption in itself. It starts from the assumption that they're separate entities, rather than different parts of the same entity.

They're arguing about Green's position and how it relates to the clause in his termination agreement. So they're arguing that when Sevco became the owner of "the club", Green became the Chief Exec of "the club", irrespective of his position in "the company" either before or after the asset purchase.

[Ozyhibby]

So far, it looks like Sevco are trying to get out on a technicality, that Green was employed by the company and they were only purchased by the company in 2012 and some charges relate to before that.
I'm not sure how that helps as they are still tied to the Company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

To be recognised in law as seperate from the company, surely they would need some legal presence seperate from Sevco Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Cheers folks, the thing i really don't get is the time scale here. The transfer of the assets being dodgy was raised all over the internet almost immediately when it happened 3 years ago. Why has it taken so long to go to court!! ach well, its funny seeing the dirtys squirm more and more each day :thumbsup:

There's a world of difference between something being "dodgy" and it being criminal. That it has taken so long to get to Court probably reflects the various estimates being thrown around... "100,000 pages of evidence", "longest trial in Scots history" being 2... as well as the sheer complexity of what's going on.

[Ozyhibby]

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/the-wolffe-of-parliament-square/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm hoping you are forensically examining Phil latest blog as it was way beyond my pay grade. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What Phil, or rather his 2 pals, say is reasonable.

It's very difficult to look at a set of numbers like that and "know" the truth. Different users look at accounts from different perspectives. If, for example, I was looking at them from a non-football perspective, I'd be saying..."yeah, things seem okay, but can we have a proper look at your forecasts?"

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Parties in Charles Green vs Rangers International football club called back into court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown points out that in the Rangers IPO document the "prospect of future litigation" was specifically mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

: Brown on Green's asset purchase: "The risk that someone might seek to unpick this transaction was clearly anticipated"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown: that while the assets of Rangers had been purchased for £6.75m they had later been valued at over £20m,"

1/2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: This, Brown says could lead to the risk the transaction would be challenged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Haymaker]

I am, officially, lost.

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: What Sevco bought was a club, stadium, assets etc without right to play football in this country. That was a gamble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I am, officially, lost.

No worries, just enjoy the drama.

15640

[Ozyhibby]

Nothing happening just now as they are talking about up coming case against Sevco 7, so reporting restrictions are in place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[southsider]

So who do we want to win ? If Green wins the rangers pay his costs but if Green loses then it may be a criminal act and the assets returned to the liquidor ? Or do I have that all wrong ?

[portycabbage]

They're arguing about Green's position and how it relates to the clause in his termination agreement. So they're arguing that when Sevco became the owner of "the club", Green became the Chief Exec of "the club", irrespective of his position in "the company" either before or after the asset purchase.

So Green became the chief executive of a non-company? Sevco and RIFC are both companies and have boards, so how was Green - or anyone else - supposed to be chief exec of something that isn't a company, given that "the club" is supposed to be something entirely different. I'm being rhetorical by the way, obviously the whole thing's nonsense!

[portycabbage]

I am, officially, lost.

Allow me to summarise-

:hyper



:greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Lots of shaking of heads and whispering from the RIFC table at this section of evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

So who do we want to win ? If Green wins the rangers pay his costs but if Green loses then it may be a criminal act and the assets returned to the liquidor ? Or do I have that all wrong ?

Be greedy. [emoji3]
You can have both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown, RIFC are acting: "as if the criminal case is some frolic unrelated to his [Green's] duties."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steakbake]

Interesting feed of info. It'll be interesting to see how the various fictions get untangled in a legal process. No one will come out of this looking very good.

The idea that the club is separate from the company that runs it was a ludicrous position from the outset.

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Breaking:The same lawyer acted for Charles Green as acted for Andy Coulson court told.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Court now being shown a contract between "The Rangers Football Club ltd" and Charles Green from September 2012.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Contract back dated to 1/6/12


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: Charles Green's employment contract produced. With "The Rangers Football Club Ltd", which is pointed out as formerly Sevco Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown now moves on to "the vexed question of the mythical concept of the club"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

So Green became the chief executive of a non-company? Sevco and RIFC are both companies and have boards, so how was Green - or anyone else - supposed to be chief exec of something that isn't a company, given that "the club" is supposed to be something entirely different. I'm being rhetorical by the way, obviously the whole thing's nonsense!

Glad you added that bit. :greengrin


Meanwhile back in court ...

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 24s25 seconds ago
Brown now moves on to "the vexed question of the mythical concept of the club"

[Ozyhibby]

Pulls up a chair[emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: A club would be an unincorporated association. Lord Doherty interrupts to say that is only one meaning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: Lord Doherty says it is clear Rangers started out as an unincorporated association.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago
Brown asks "what does the rest of the world outside football think what a club is."

Judge "club can be used in a number of ways"


Judge says that the "articles of association show Ranger started is a club"

Brown replies this changed when incorporated,

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Judge says that the "articles of association show Ranger started is a club"

Brown replies this changed when incorporated,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown "A club can not sign contracts"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer appears to have a copy of the original Rangers articles of association to hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: From 1872 until 1899, articles of association show Rangers the club was unincorporated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown now quoting from Rangers incorporation document from 1889. Notes it says "takeover the assets" bit does not mention "club"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown says if you wanted to by George Herriots FP (a rugby club in Edinburgh) you would just have to buy the assets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: If one today wanted to set up professional rugby club and wanted to buy Heriots FP, there's a distinction between club and assets


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown says that there is a difference between the company and the business assets but not between a "club and a company"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bingo70]

Who's winning and when do we get the result?

[JeMeSouviens]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4s4 seconds ago
Brown says that there is a difference between the company and the business assets but not between a "club and a company"


Seriously, all this common sense will never catch on. :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

Charlie just threw the seperate club company thing under a bus there[emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: If someone wishes to buy the club in this sense, Whyte bought club from Murray as he bought shares in the company


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: "Sevco Scotland did not buy the club. It bought the business assets of the club," says Charles Green's lawyer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: Lord Doherty: So what was left of the club after all these assets were sold?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

The judge may of course revert to fantasy land - this could all hinge on if he's in the same fourball as Nimmo-Smith ...

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: This is a distinction between the failed CVA and the purchase and sale of assets which took place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown moves on to Lord Nimmo Smith report to the SPL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: Lord Nimmo Smith construed articles of SPL. Did so in context of addressing what jurisdiction they had to impose penalties


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: LNS par 33 on articles of definitions from SPL. "club means undertaking of a football club".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: LNS par 37. In SPL rules, club is an association football club eligible to participate in league and includes owner/operator


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: One cannot be the chief executive of a thing which cannot enter into contracts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown Says a club is an "undertaking" of it's owners and as it "has neither capacity of personality" no-one can be CEO of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: Difference between Rangers and Woolworths... Any Newco of Woolworths would have bought the undertaking. Not the personality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown "The idea someone can be CEO of an undertaking is just nonsense."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: What act did this "club" as distinct from Sevco Scotland carry out for Green?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: How and why was Green appointed to the "club"? On what terms?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: The business is the preparation of a pro football team. Players employed by Sevco. Using brands owned by Sevco


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: Manager employed by Sevco. Customers of Sevco buy tickets from Sevco.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: "The team are paid by Sevco, play at a ground owned by Sevco trained by a manager who is employed by Sevco, fans buy tickets from Sevco"
1/2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: LNS par 46. Of course one has an undertaking and assets which can be bought and sold. This happens all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4s5 seconds ago
Brown "What is the players went one way and the ground another, where is the "club" then.?


One for the pro-Hun metaphysicists there? :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: Clearly basket of assets is not single, indivisible thing. What if grounds go one place, players the other? What is a club then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: I accept matter of whether it is same club or not is a matter of life or death for some people


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: It's a leap, in the interest of continuity, that the parties in this contract did not intend to be involved in the act carried on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: One is trying to find out what the parties meant by Rangers Football Club


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: Defies belief parties meant to indemnify against non-existent threat and not against real threat of proceedings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown says that Green "was prepared to depart the scene without fuss," but if he was "dragged back in" agreement was "you pay the lawyers."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[southsider]

Whats happening Ozy ? Are sevco bringing on the subs ?

[JeMeSouviens]

Can't believe RIFC went down the club/company distinction route. Even if it wasn't all obviously bollocks and amorphous clubs really were floating about in the ether, it's stretching credulity to believe Green and RIFC signed up to a legal indemnity clause relating to a position in something without legal personality.

Their other defence - that a la Andy Coulson, if someone is alleged to have done something illegal that's against the interest of the company, they wouldn't expect indemnity - seems a bit more hopeful for them.

When do we get a judgement?

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown says costs decision can not wait until criminal case is over "The rainy day has arrived" he tells the court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown says the wording of the indemnity agreement shows "it was to be as wide as possible."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: Costs decision can't wait until end of the trial. Can't be based on an outcome which may not come to pass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

@jamesdoleman: Brown Says a club is an "undertaking" of it's owners and as it "has neither capacity of personality" no-one can be CEO of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry, what?

Is the lawyer just trying to bamboozle people into submission?

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Court now discussing timetable for forthcoming criminal case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Treadstone]

@jamesdoleman: Brown says costs decision can not wait until criminal case is over "The rainy day has arrived" he tells the court.

In all honesty this is bang on. If you believe you are right on all this you will hire the best representation available if someone else is picking up the tab. If you know you might have to pay you will look for the best available at the sum you can afford.
Two very different things.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm sorry, what?

Is the lawyer just trying to bamboozle people into submission?

He's saying that even if you follow the LNS/SFA/Hun terminology and accept there are metaphysical "club" entities, nobody could be called the "Chief Exec" of such a thing, so that can't possibly be what's meant in the indemnity clause in Green's termination agreement.

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: Jonathan Brown, lawyer for Charles Green, concludes his argument. Lord Doherty notes a number of typographical errors on his submission.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: James Wolffe, lawyer for Rangers, says there are two matters he wishes to pick up on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Wolffe notes that counsel for Green had "taken issue with my fall-back position."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Wolffe says he agrees that Green is "entitled to the presumption if innocence" on the criminal charges


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[portycabbage]

He's saying that even if you follow the LNS/SFA/Hun terminology and accept there are metaphysical "club" entities, nobody could be called the "Chief Exec" of such a thing, so that can't possibly be what's meant in the indemnity clause in Green's termination agreement.

I was saying that too!


So is the approach meant to be that when the assets passed to Sevco it became the club? But Sevco was started 3 years ago and is a company, whether or not it's considered a club as well, so I can't see how the club/company "distinction" works for RIFC here, unless they say Rangers are a new club. On the other hand, if Sevco/TRFC is the owner of the club, and the "club" is the essence, brand, history or assets which were transferred to Sevco, then I can't see how RIFC can claim it's the essence of Rangers that employed him, rather than a company ("essence of Rangers" -sounds like particularly bad aftershave).

I think the quote further back from Lord Doherty(?) (quoted by Ozy) that either the club is a club or it's a company, is an assumption in itself. It starts from the assumption that they're separate entities, rather than different parts of the same entity.

[JeMeSouviens]

I was saying that too!

True, but it's unlikely Lord Doherty is taking your postings into account. :wink:

[Treadstone]

I was saying that too!

Get yourself to court Porty. RIFC need a hand!

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Wolffe, for RIFC, suggests judge can "draw an inference from the [criminal] indictment which he calls his "fallback, fallback position."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

@jamesdoleman: Wolffe, for RIFC, suggests judge can "draw an inference from the [criminal] indictment which he calls his "fallback, fallback position."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More like his nudge, nudge position.

[Treadstone]

The criminal trial will need a separate thread.

[Hibee87]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/664835968260833280)
Jonathan Brown, representing Green is "given the opportunity to have the last word" by Judge.

[Weststandwanab]

More like his nudge, nudge position.

I hope that is "Sevco assume the position !".

[JeMeSouviens]

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m3 minutes ago
The Court is told Green seeking funding for senior counsel, junior counsel, solicitors and any experts senior counsel wishes to call

Sounds expensive! :greengrin

[portycabbage]

True, but it's unlikely Lord Doherty is taking your postings into account. :wink:

He's in court reading them off his phone, the bloody plagiarist!

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: The Court is told Green seeking funding for senior counsel, junior counsel, solicitors and any experts senior counsel wishes to call


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[portycabbage]

Get yourself to court Porty. RIFC need a hand!

I thought my position was being echoed by CG's lawyer? If I've misread that, then my legal career is in tatters before it's begun!:greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown has nothing more to add. Lord Doherty thanks counsel for their "submissions in this interesting case."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: Lord Doherty says he will "take some time to consider before issuing decision in writing".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Well that was fun in itself and a teaser for the upcoming criminal trial - which sounds mega! :aok:

[Treadstone]

Anyone know if ringfencing the money is part of the judgement?

Well done Ozy staying across two Twitter feeds.

[Hibee87]

@STVGrant: Lord Doherty says he will "take some time to consider before issuing decision in writing".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How long do you think that this would take?

[Treadstone]

Well that was fun in itself and a teaser for the upcoming criminal trial - which sounds mega! :aok:

Daily Record will have it bigger than Lockerbie, Sheridan and Coulson all rolled into one. Then they'll find out where Megrahi was actually tried.

[Ozyhibby]

That was fun and it's only day of a hearing about costs. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/the-elephant-in-the-room/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

That was fun and it's only day of a hearing about costs. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheers Oz, enjoyed that! .... Can't wait for the next instalments..... :devil:

[cam75]

Better call Saul 😂😂😂

[Hibby70]

It's gonna get messy.

[JeMeSouviens]

More deflection/denial/defiance hot off the presses from Hun Central:


It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.

As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.

First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.

This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.

Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.


Oh really?

[Glesgahibby]

A lot to digest there!
A wee teaser regarding club/company myth.
It's now clear if Green wins,he will apply to ring fence money.
sevcos comparison to another case batted back because of conflict of intrest.
my money's on charlie:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

More deflection/denial/defiance hot off the presses from Hun Central:




Oh really?

Don't know where to start with that.

It's inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory.

[Kato]

More deflection/denial/defiance hot off the presses from Hun Central:




Oh really?

fiduciary


A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other asset for another person.

Educational this stuff. Rangers have never been fiduciary for quite a while.

[JeMeSouviens]

Don't know where to start with that.

It's inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory.

Glib and shameless you might say. Desperate attempt to circle the Hun wagons just as the wheels are coming off. :cb

[JimBHibees]

More deflection/denial/defiance hot off the presses from Hun Central:




Oh really?

Obviously demanding names again even though they knew them all along. They really are an odious institution with not one iota of contrition for their systematic cheating.

Wow didnt realise that was from King thought it was from some halfwit on a fans forum.

[CropleyWasGod]

Glib and shameless you might say. Desperate attempt to circle the Hun wagons just as the wheels are coming off. :cb

This bit is particularly offensive:-

"the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs."

We know that he means Phil and JJ, and the late Paul McConville. But it's insulting to the all of the participants on here, and no doubt on many other boards, whose combined intellect and understanding dwarfs that of the MSM who still fail to ask the important questions.

[Weststandwanab]

Don't know where to start with that.

It's inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory.

File under B for Bucket.

King is playing a straight bat with Sevconians whilst positioning himself to do well out of Admin2 which must be close when Chuck wins and ring fences some cash.

[Ozyhibby]

****, is that a statement from Sevco?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

File under B for Bucket.

King is playing a straight bat with Sevconians whilst positioning himself to do well out of Admin2 which must be close when Chuck wins and ring fences some cash.


I'm intrigued. How would that work?

[matty_f]

I find it astonishing that The Rangers think that they have any credibility or even a mandate to state how Scottish football should deal with them.

It's akin to a drunk driver telling the police that they don't need to breathalyse them, or the Russian athletics body just saying that they'd have won without the doping anyway so there's no need to look into it now.

Isn't it amazing that the people with the most to lose are the ones trying to tell everyone else that there's no need to do anything?

[GordonHFC]

Can someone remind him of his statement in the daily mail on 19 June 2012 where he states they may have gained an unfair advantage.

[JeMeSouviens]

I find it astonishing that The Rangers think that they have any credibility or even a mandate to state how Scottish football should deal with them.

It's akin to a drunk driver telling the police that they don't need to breathalyse them, or the Russian athletics body just saying that they'd have won without the doping anyway so there's no need to look into it now.

Isn't it amazing that the people with the most to lose are the ones trying to tell everyone else that there's no need to do anything?

That was aimed squarely at internal Hun consumption. All that was missing was a WATP No Surrender sign-off. :rolleyes:

[Sergio sledge]

More deflection/denial/defiance hot off the presses from Hun Central:

Oh really?

Demotion from the Premier League? Does he not understand the process that went on? Rangers weren't demoted, the new club had their application to take over the old club's share turned down. How can the new club be demoted from a league they were never part of in the first place.

As for the last paragraph, does he not remember what happened the last time a someone from Rangers said something mildly threatening, Ally McCoists demand to know "who these people are" springs to mind.

Would the threat in the last paragraph not be something that the SFA could charge him for anyway?

[JeMeSouviens]

Can someone remind him of his statement in the daily mail on 19 June 2012 where he states they may have gained an unfair advantage.

Or indeed David Murray's evidence to the tax tribunal where he openly stated that was the whole point of the ******g ebt scheme.

[Jack]

If sevco did go bust again would the line that Chuckles is taking mean that he'd still be getting his fees covered by whoever took over the new sevco mk2?

[Ozyhibby]

What is great about the way things are now is that Sevco is the little guy. Any legal battle with a blogger would attract so much crowd funding that the best legal team in the land could be hired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

But it's insulting to the all of the participants on here, and no doubt on many other boards.

Oh, Dear.

Insulted by a bluenose. However shall we sleep tonight. :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

If sevco did go bust again would the line that Chuckles is taking mean that he'd still be getting his fees covered by whoever took over the new sevco mk2?

No, he needs them to keep going and the soft loans to keep paying for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glesgahibby]

This bit is particularly offensive:-

"the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs."

We know that he means Phil and JJ, and the late Paul McConville. But it's insulting to the all of the participants on here, and no doubt on many other boards, whose combined intellect and understanding dwarfs that of the MSM who still fail to ask the important questions.
The guys lost it "big time"
As I have said before,the SFA has to protect itself,it cannot hide behind the LNS report.
Every time King angers clubs(Scottish/European),Fans and people with agendas(phil and jj) he inflames the situation and increases the number of people calling for the SFA to implement the rules and punishment regarding ineligable players.

[jacomo]

Don't know where to start with that.

It's inaccurate, insulting and inflammatory.

That's a pretty good start!

It's the threatening sign off that really gets me though. The man is an absolute p****.

[Glesgahibby]

Can someone remind him of his statement in the daily mail on 19 June 2012 where he states they may have gained an unfair advantage.
There was also the"buy oldco" so they could shut up the "new club brigade"
We really are starting to see the real glib and shameless personality now:greengrin

[jacomo]

And I am absolutely focused on the well-being of my own club when I say that Scottish football must punish the cheats.

Unfortunately, I fear that the Huns are too dumb to realise that the people to blame for this sorry mess are not bloggers or rival fans, but the people who have been running their club. Dave King included.

His statement suggests that the pressure is starting to get to him.

[Ozyhibby]

I think the new club is in big trouble and the strain is starting to show.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy Foghorn]

And I am absolutely focused on the well-being of my own club when I say that Scottish football must punish the cheats.

Unfortunately, I fear that the Huns are too dumb to realise that the people to blame for this sorry mess are not bloggers or rival fans, but the people who have been running their club. Dave King included.

His statement suggests that the pressure is starting to get to him.

Spot on........Fit and proper, for what?

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh, Dear.

Insulted by a bluenose. However shall we sleep tonight. :wink:
Good point [emoji6]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Glesgahibby]

Having read Kings statement and the inaccurate information it contains.
I would suggest the PR set up at Ibrox has become "a free for all"
whos in charge now?
Dave King evens
sons of struth 6/4
level 5 6/1
20/1 bar

[3pm]

Warburton on Fulham's shortlist.

[Monts]

"If the history of our club comes under attack, we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football."

[Kato]

Having read Kings statement and the inaccurate information it contains.
I would suggest the PR set up at Ibrox has become "a free for all"
whos in charge now?
Dave King evens
sons of struth 6/4
level 5 6/1
20/1 bar


Lewis Carroll 1/3
CS Lewis 2/1
Ray Bradbury 3/1
Frank L Baum 5/1

[Onceinawhile]

Covered in the main meltdown thread.

More faces than the town clock that guy.

[Baldy Foghorn]

"If the history of our club comes under attack, we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football."

He should be cited for his aggressive tone......(And for being a shameless, glib liar)

How SFA passed him as fit and proper beggars belief.........No wonder Ashley taking them to court re that decision

[Golden Bear]

The guy is not of this world. His inane ramblings get more bizarre as each day passes.

[JimBHibees]

Good for the guy on Stv to highlight the contradiction in King's comments today to previous comments.

[Jack Hackett]

The toothless tiger yelps :hilarious

[givescotlandfreedom]

As mentioned my favourite part of King's waffle is referring to Sevco as being 'demoted'. How can you be demoted when you applied to join the league?

[Famous Fiver]

Mr King.

Your nasty despicable club cheated.

End of.

Now you expect us to ignore it?

Aye, right.

[Pete]

I don't know what's going on but I hope Mike Ashley wins.

Rangers fans must be torn as they rage at Ashley whilst wearing Donnay trainers and a No Fear tracksuit.

[Benny Brazil]

"Certain players may not have signed for the club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings, but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch"

Hunbelieveable. Did he not already admit a while back that they did get an unfair advantage:confused:

[Treadstone]

Can someone remind him of his statement in the daily mail on 19 June 2012 where he states they may have gained an unfair advantage.

Discussing that on Sportsound with the journalist who reported it.

[Pretty Boy]

Playing to the gallery to deflect from the current financial mess at the club.

[Famous Fiver]

Pretty please, Warburton to Fulham.

Fair brightened up my evening, that thought.

Meltdown along Copland Road methinks.

[Ozyhibby]

http://wildingmuses.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/sorry-seems-to-be-hardest-word.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

That statement from King must be one of those "restrained and tempered" responses that the ibroxnoise website was banging on about due to the usual Rangers dignity!

[bingo70]

Pretty please, Warburton to Fulham.

Fair brightened up my evening, that thought.

Meltdown along Copland Road methinks.

Is that a likely possibility?

[RoxburghHibs]

As mentioned my favourite part of King's waffle is referring to Sevco as being 'demoted'. How can you be demoted when you applied to join the league?

I agree 100%

But why do the media never pull them up on this?

[JJP]

I agree 100%

But why do the media never pull them up on this?

Because it would divide their readership/viewership.

[Baldy Foghorn]

I agree 100%

But why do the media never pull them up on this?

Don't want to upset the institution or it's masses.................

[Ozyhibby]

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/script-writing-in-excelsis/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

And I am absolutely focused on the well-being of my own club when I say that Scottish football must punish the cheats.

Unfortunately, I fear that the Huns are too dumb to realise that the people to blame for this sorry mess are not bloggers or rival fans, but the people who have been running their club. Dave King included.

His statement suggests that the pressure is starting to get to him.
Utterly out of his depth, hope he keeps talking.

[greenginger]

https://twitter.com/ChrisGraham76


Further Sevconian threats.

[jacomo]

Warburton on Fulham's shortlist.

If he's wise he'll get out of the mad hoose pronto. The match at ER was a sign, loaf. It's down hill from here.

[macca70]

https://twitter.com/ChrisGraham76


Further Sevconian threats.

Dave King statement:

It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.

As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.

First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.

This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.

Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

[leggeto]

So would anyone gain a trophy if they get stripped of them,even if the other clubs wouldn't want them

[Bostonhibby]

So would anyone gain a trophy if they get stripped of them,even if the other clubs wouldn't want them

The yams will take them. They have a special relationship with cups and don't mind how they get their hands on them. Keeps it in the family.

[macca70]

Dave King statement:

It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.

As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.

First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.

This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.

Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

He clearly says that had it not been for the financial/tax set up, certain players wouldn't have signed but goes on to say that didn't give them an advantage on the pitch!!

What a load of lies. This is just going to turn every other club against them even more than they already are against them.

[Scorrie]

So would anyone gain a trophy if they get stripped of them,even if the other clubs wouldn't want them

I doubt it. If the trophies were stripped then the respective competitions would show no winner I assume.

[leggeto]

The yams will take them. They have a special relationship with cups and don't mind how they get their hands on them. Keeps it in the family.

Celtic would be claiming the titles for 2nd place too I rekon

[Bostonhibby]

Dave King statement:

It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.

As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.

First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.

This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.

Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

Most football fans are in a unique position to make the one observation that matters.

Sporting integrity.

[greenginger]

At today's Court hearing can anyone give a brief summary of what Rangers defence against Greens claim was based on ?

[snedzuk]

"Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs."

......Could start by releasing a statement disowning the worship of 1690 and all that - or hell might freeze over first

[macca70]

Celtic would be claiming the titles for 2nd place too I rekon

Queen of the South might want to claim 2008 Scottish Cup

[Baldy Foghorn]

I doubt it. If the trophies were stripped then the respective competitions would show no winner I assume.

Read somewhere that if titles were stripped the new winners could face claims from player's re bonuses....On the other side could the Clubs claim for loss of money from SFA or UEFA?

Anyhow, should just be stripped of titles, and the records showing no winners in the cheating years.......(IMO)

[Bostonhibby]

I doubt it. If the trophies were stripped then the respective competitions would show no winner I assume.

:agree: Void would be perfectly acceptable - in years to come it might serve as a deterrent to those who think about doing what the now defunct Glasgow rangers thought they'd got away with. Future generations of fans might wonder what caused the entries to be void.........

[leggeto]

Read somewhere that if titles were stripped the new winners could face claims from player's re bonuses....On the other side could the Clubs claim for loss of money from SFA or UEFA?

Anyhow, should just be stripped of titles, and the records showing no winners in the cheating years.......(IMO)

Yeah I would want to win it properly and celebrate it,no winner sounds fair,hope they get stripped of all of them

[greenginger]

Read somewhere that if titles were stripped the new winners could face claims from player's re bonuses....On the other side could the Clubs claim for loss of money from SFA or UEFA?

Anyhow, should just be stripped of titles, and the records showing no winners in the cheating years.......(IMO)


Agree ! the cheating years is a good way of keeping the memory of what happened so it won't be allowed to happen again.

The Yams should also be scrutinised during their Vlad years.

[leggeto]

What happened with Marseille when they won the European cup are they still listed as winners

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

He clearly says that had it not been for the financial/tax set up, certain players wouldn't have signed but goes on to say that didn't give them an advantage on the pitch!!

What a load of lies. This is just going to turn every other club against them even more than they already are against them.

No-one likes them, they don't care! :-)

Looking forward to the details from King re their "demotion".

[Bostonhibby]

At today's Court hearing can anyone give a brief summary of what Rangers defence against Greens claim was based on ?

He wasn't a multimillionaire fan of the now defunct Glasgow rangers after all?

Therefore any mason in their right mind would immediately order that he be taken from the court to a place of public execution in the Govan area before he utters a word?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Dave King statement:

It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.

As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.

First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.

Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.

Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.

This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.

Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.

It's time you stopped talking pish and stopped cheating, Hun. It isn't we who are re-writing history, it's your abomination of a bigoted ex-club; the club that folded due to being unable to make ends meet. Don't pretend it didn't happen.

[Jim44]

Read somewhere that if titles were stripped the new winners could face claims from player's re bonuses....On the other side could the Clubs claim for loss of money from SFA or UEFA?

Anyhow, should just be stripped of titles, and the records showing no winners in the cheating years.......(IMO)

A week or so ago I posted, half tongue in cheek, half serious, that, if they are stripped of their titles, they should still be named as winners but clearly qualified as non-counting due to 'unfair advantage taken'. This would be a strong, public, permanent indictment of Oldco. Maybe not such a daft suggestion after all.

[jacomo]

What happened with Marseille when they won the European cup are they still listed as winners

They were relegated and banned from Europe.

[jacomo]

"If the history of our club comes under attack, we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football."

Tbf he's got a point.

As far as I know they won Div 3 and Div 2 titles legitimately (albeit by spending a huge amount of money).

What other history do they have?

[Greenblood70]

Sevco are as good as dead imo -it is only a matter of time.

Good riddance when they finally are flushed away like the persistant toleys they are. I will certainly raise a glass in celebration. I despise them, thier bigotry, cheating and arrogance.

Kings increasingly unhinged ramblings and actions must surely be scaring off any remaining, reluctant allies. Interesting to read and hear some huns now saying it's all part of greater master plan of Kings to force an insolvency event. I think they are crediting him with far too much intelligence personally. Clutching at straws imo.

[Andy74]

He clearly says that had it not been for the financial/tax set up, certain players wouldn't have signed but goes on to say that didn't give them an advantage on the pitch!!

What a load of lies. This is just going to turn every other club against them even more than they already are against them.

Gross mismanagement if they didn't sign those cheaper players who would have been just as good.