Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Follow James Doleman or STVGrant on twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Cheers :thumbsup:

@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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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.

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/pla...rifc-accounts/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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.

@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

@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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

@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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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.

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 ?

@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

Can't post any more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Oh oh! .... :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Can't post any more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

You cant stop like that OZy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrinityHibs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrinityHibs

You cant stop like that OZy

---

Duplicate post problem. Will sort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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 ?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southsider

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Duplicate post problem. Will sort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

JMS stepped in praise the Lord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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 ?