Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

@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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

I was saying that too!

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

I was saying that too!

---

Get yourself to court Porty. RIFC need a hand!

@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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

More like his nudge, nudge position.

The criminal trial will need a separate thread.

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes ago
Jonathan Brown, representing Green is "given the opportunity to have the last word" by Judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

More like his nudge, nudge position.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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!

@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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treadstone

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

Well done Ozy staying across two Twitter feeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

@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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...t-in-the-room/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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:

Better call Saul 😂😂😂

It's gonna get messy.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave King

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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.