Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cabbage East

Not far off. Lifted from their forum
Quote Originally Posted by hun

questions have to be raised about the jury's integrity. Given that if you had any links to the Club whether that be season ticket, shares or family who work at Rangers you were not allowed on the jury as there would be a conflict of interest. They did not carry out any other checks to see what football tendencies they had.. For a big case like this there should have been an impartial jury brought in from another UK city..

---

He'd probably been happy bussing them in from Belfast

James Doleman's comments https://www.byline.com/project/72/article/1712

Donald Findlay :not worth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

He'd probably been happy bussing them in from Belfast

---

Another genius just said "no rangers men were allowed on the jury. Just Catholics and rangers haters." Unbelievable in 2017.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
Rangers fraud trial: SFA to seek £200,000 from Craig Whyte
By Chris McLaughlin

BBC Sport
11 minutes ago


From the section Football


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
The SFA is considering pursuing Craig Whyte for a £200,000 fine




The Scottish Football Association is to consider pursuing former Rangers owner Craig Whyte for a fine of £200,000 for bringing the game into disrepute.
Whyte, found not guilty of taking over the club by fraud in May 2011, was fined by the governing body in 2012 but the money was never paid.
SFA chief executive Stewart Regan confirmed the body will take advice about how to recover the money.


Regan declined to comment on the High Court verdict concerning Whyte.
More to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.a.m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
Rangers fraud trial: SFA to seek £200,000 from Craig Whyte
By Chris McLaughlin

BBC Sport

• 11 minutes ago
• From the section Football

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
The SFA is considering pursuing Craig Whyte for a £200,000 fine

The Scottish Football Association is to consider pursuing former Rangers owner Craig Whyte for a fine of £200,000 for bringing the game into disrepute.
Whyte, found not guilty of taking over the club by fraud in May 2011, was fined by the governing body in 2012 but the money was never paid.
SFA chief executive Stewart Regan confirmed the body will take advice about how to recover the money.

Regan declined to comment on the High Court verdict concerning Whyte.
More to follow.

---

Regan brings Scottish fitba into more disrepute than Craigie ever did.

After following the case, I could not see how any other decision could be taken. There just did not seem to be any evidence that he committed fraud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Donald Findlay :not worth

---

Certainly a more impressive lawyer's performance than this bloke:

Gary Withey, who was hired by Craig Whyte to see through the Rangers deal, was unable to tell the court how old he was. Prosecutor Alex Prentice QC asked Mr Withey to state his age - a standard question asked of all witnesses at the start of their evidence. After attempting to recall the year in which he was born, Mr Withey eventually settled on 52.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.a.m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
Rangers fraud trial: SFA to seek £200,000 from Craig Whyte
By Chris McLaughlin

BBC Sport
11 minutes ago
From the section Football


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
The SFA is considering pursuing Craig Whyte for a £200,000 fine



The Scottish Football Association is to consider pursuing former Rangers owner Craig Whyte for a fine of £200,000 for bringing the game into disrepute.
Whyte, found not guilty of taking over the club by fraud in May 2011, was fined by the governing body in 2012 but the money was never paid.
SFA chief executive Stewart Regan confirmed the body will take advice about how to recover the money.


Regan declined to comment on the High Court verdict concerning Whyte.
More to follow.

---

I hope they try. I've never understood why sporting bodies are allowed to fine individuals sums of money which are often in excess of what the courts of the land impose. CW has nothing to lose and could challenge them all the way to the highest court in the land (Europe if we are still in it) and I think he would win. Those at the top of the SFA chain are collectively the most idiotic bunch imaginable.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.a.m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
Rangers fraud trial: SFA to seek £200,000 from Craig Whyte
By Chris McLaughlin

BBC Sport
11 minutes ago


From the section Football


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
The SFA is considering pursuing Craig Whyte for a £200,000 fine




The Scottish Football Association is to consider pursuing former Rangers owner Craig Whyte for a fine of £200,000 for bringing the game into disrepute.
Whyte, found not guilty of taking over the club by fraud in May 2011, was fined by the governing body in 2012 but the money was never paid.
SFA chief executive Stewart Regan confirmed the body will take advice about how to recover the money.


Regan declined to comment on the High Court verdict concerning Whyte.
More to follow.

---

Strange timing.

Given that CW was made bankrupt a couple of years ago, and has only recently had that lifted, I'm not sure the SFA have much chance of getting their money anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Strange timing.

---

Pound of flesh wanted from The Patsy, one way or another.

... and another bizarre twist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40175853

Last week, his reputation is trashed in Court. This week, he confirms it :greengrin

One of things I can't get my head around is what exactly Donald Findlay's agenda is.

I've followed the case and I've started to take a bit of an interest in the law. By all accounts he played an absolute blinder.

But why and for what reason? What was his agenda?

He's a Rangers man and he's a top criminal lawyer. Did he want the truth to be heard in court? Why did he agree to represent Whyte, given that he is a bit of a pariah amongst those of a Rangers persuasion? Did he just want to defend his client, as a fine upstanding gentleman who wishes to see justice being done?

Was he trying to get one over on Murray so that the real villain of the piece, the real man who should be targeted more than any other for what has happened to Rangers over the past decade gets exposed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... and another bizarre twist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40175853

Last week, his reputation is trashed in Court. This week, he confirms it :greengrin

---

Did they not work out he was a clueless, headless monkey last time he was on the board?

I guess he's a Rangers man so that overlooks any of his abilities to do the job required of him!? :confused::rolleyes:

They are the gift that just keeps you laughing!! :thumbsup::greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

One of things I can't get my head around is what exactly Donald Findlay's agenda is.

I've followed the case and I've started to take a bit of an interest in the law. By all accounts he played an absolute blinder.

But why and for what reason? What was his agenda?

He's a Rangers man and he's a top criminal lawyer. Did he want the truth to be heard in court? Why did he agree to represent Whyte, given that he is a bit of a pariah amongst those of a Rangers persuasion? Did he just want to defend his client, as a fine upstanding gentleman who wishes to see justice being done?

Was he trying to get one over on Murray so that the real villain of the piece, the real man who should be targeted more than any other for what has happened to Rangers over the past decade gets exposed?

---

A £100-200K invoice to Legal Aid might have something to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... and another bizarre twist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40175853

Last week, his reputation is trashed in Court. This week, he confirms it :greengrin

---

I imagine it may simply be deflection from the Craig Whyte fiasco, BBC are running with this story and not the CW case as the headliner......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

A £100-200K invoice to Legal Aid might have something to do with it.

---

Does he really need the money that much though? Does he not command fees of that size fairly regularly? Could he not have just picked up a similar ticket keeping a fairly routine murderer out of prison somewhere, rather than potentially alienate many of his own peepul?

Had there been a court case following the Merger saga at Hibs, would any Hibs supporting lawyer be in a hurry to go to court to defend David Rowland?

I wouldn't have thought this would be a gig he'd really want, and have assumed that he must be up to something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Does he really need the money that much though? Does he not command fees of that size fairly regularly? Could he not have just picked up a similar ticket keeping a fairly routine murderer out of prison somewhere, rather than potentially alienate many of his own peepul?

Had there been a court case following the Merger saga at Hibs, would any Hibs supporting lawyer be in a hurry to go to court to defend David Rowland?

I wouldn't have thought this would be a gig he'd really want, and have assumed that he must be up to something.

---

Potentially some 'beef' with Murray and/or those in the Murray regime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Does he really need the money that much though? Does he not command fees of that size fairly regularly? Could he not have just picked up a similar ticket keeping a fairly routine murderer out of prison somewhere, rather than potentially alienate many of his own peepul?

Had there been a court case following the Merger saga at Hibs, would any Hibs supporting lawyer be in a hurry to go to court to defend David Rowland?

I wouldn't have thought this would be a gig he'd really want, and have assumed that he must be up to something.

---

Maybe it's just his ego driving him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoboHarry

I imagine it may simply be deflection from the Craig Whyte fiasco, BBC are running with this story and not the CW case as the headliner......

---

Get this FFS

https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/...984972288?s=09

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Get this FFS

https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/...984972288?s=09

---

OMG! What a roaster!

He can't take the fact that he has been shown to be incompetent and his mate Murray a liar and a desperado...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Get this FFS

https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/...984972288?s=09

---

What a very strange looking guy. Can't see the Rangers masses (:wink:) being too happy with the "murder" terminology there. Implies their club died.

Indeed. No corpse, no murder.

Nice to hear it confirmed at last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Get this FFS

https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/...984972288?s=09

---

:faf: Definitely deflection.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Strange timing.

Given that CW was made bankrupt a couple of years ago, and has only recently had that lifted, I'm not sure the SFA have much chance of getting their money anytime soon.

---

I think Ticketus are at the front of the queue, looking for their £18m back.
Wee Craig just seems to sail through the turbulent waters with that deranged smile...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

A fix. SNP organised the whole thing. Brendan O'Flaherty was the jury foreman. The club was doing fine financially until Whyte took over.

You don't believe those things? Get on to the Huns' fans' forums and they'll put you right. The stupidity is remarkable even by their standards.

One of the bits of evidence I found interesting was that Lloyds Bank rejected futher loans because the business case supporting the request depended on qualification for the Champions League group for the next three seasons. It would be interesting to observe a parallel universe in which Rangers beat Malmo in 2011 and went on to the group stage. We might find how Whyte planned to profit from the deal.

---

Whenever I ask myself how on earth in the year 2017 so many people could vote for a horse's arse like Donald Trump, I pop over there and it becomes crystal clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number9dream

I think Ticketus are at the front of the queue, looking for their £18m back.
Wee Craig just seems to sail through the turbulent waters with that deranged smile...

---

From whom would Ticketus try to re-claim the money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

From whom would Ticketus try to re-claim the money?

---

They've already sued CW for it, which is why he was declared bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

One of things I can't get my head around is what exactly Donald Findlay's agenda is.

I've followed the case and I've started to take a bit of an interest in the law. By all accounts he played an absolute blinder.

But why and for what reason? What was his agenda?

He's a Rangers man and he's a top criminal lawyer. Did he want the truth to be heard in court? Why did he agree to represent Whyte, given that he is a bit of a pariah amongst those of a Rangers persuasion? Did he just want to defend his client, as a fine upstanding gentleman who wishes to see justice being done?

Was he trying to get one over on Murray so that the real villain of the piece, the real man who should be targeted more than any other for what has happened to Rangers over the past decade gets exposed?

---

I'm pretty sure he must have left amid much bitterness on both sides and it wouldn't surprise me if he and SDM never saw eye to eye either.

If you're involved in any jiggery pokery DF is not the sort of person you want to have previously upset. It wouldn't surprise me if Donald volunteered his services or at least offered mates rates to get his own back on SDM and that rangers board.

Whatever people may think of Donald Findlay QC, he has played an absolute blinder in this case, exposing Sir David Murray and the shambles that was Rangers FC.