@jamesdoleman: Brown moves on to Lord Nimmo Smith report to the SPL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
@jamesdoleman: Brown moves on to Lord Nimmo Smith report to the SPL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@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
@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
@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
@STVGrant: CG lawyer: One cannot be the chief executive of a thing which cannot enter into contracts
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@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
@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
@jamesdoleman: Brown "The idea someone can be CEO of an undertaking is just nonsense."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@STVGrant: CG lawyer: What act did this "club" as distinct from Sevco Scotland carry out for Green?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@STVGrant: CG lawyer: How and why was Green appointed to the "club"? On what terms?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@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
@STVGrant: CG lawyer: Manager employed by Sevco. Customers of Sevco buy tickets from Sevco.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@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
@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
Quote:
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
@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
@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
@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
@STVGrant: CG lawyer: One is trying to find out what the parties meant by Rangers Football Club
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@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
@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
Whats happening Ozy ? Are sevco bringing on the subs ?
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?
@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
@jamesdoleman: Brown says the wording of the indemnity agreement shows "it was to be as wide as possible."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@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
I'm sorry, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is the lawyer just trying to bamboozle people into submission?
@jamesdoleman: Court now discussing timetable for forthcoming criminal case.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Two very different things.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven