Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

I think tomorrow will be the end of it. I can’t see him getting permission to take such a flimsy case to the Supreme Court.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What (or who) is the TP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

What (or who) is the TP?

---

Takeover Panel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

What (or who) is the TP?

---

The People :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4185

I think they’ll make the same sort of Progres as last year!

Its pretty clear that the directors soft loans have dried up and I’ve never believed King had the cash needed. If they are taking costly loans already then I can’t possibly see any other way back for them.

Needing £7 million to stay afloat. High earners unlikely to leave. Morelos story is a lot of nonsense and a lot of loan players needing bought or replaced.

It it looks like they’ve bet everything on Europe. An admin event when they don’t qualify for the European group stages would allow them to get rid of some players and clear the decks.

Group stages or admin is my bet. Be nice if we finished third and helped them down the admin road!

---

A-ha :idea: that's why it was a penalty when the ball hit Porteous's arm.

Doleman has been snowed off.

We need a volunteer....

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Doleman has been snowed off.

We need a volunteer....

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

---

Wimp. I’m already in the office, although it’s only two doors from my house. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...o_convictions/

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ecc59bfc7e.jpg

The final instalment of the transfer story is released...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...o_convictions/

---

Yet another site who want to block ad blockers...

... F*** 'em!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radium

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ecc59bfc7e.jpg

The final instalment of the transfer story is released...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Didn't see that coming....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radium

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ecc59bfc7e.jpg

The final instalment of the transfer story is released...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Waitwaitwait. The record is describing this M*ngolian guy as a striker, while transfermarkt suggests he's a left-back (4 goals in 58 appearances) with a market value of about €100K whose career consisted entirely of being a free agent (he's 26 years old) until about 2 years ago. That's the guy that Beijing went with instead of spending £6 or 7 or 8 million on Morelos? I've no idea about how good this guy is, but they hardly sound like drop-in replacements for each other.

The Daily Record seems to want us to believe that football clubs in China are so mysterious and inscrutable that they'd be happy to go out shopping for a Ferrari and come back with a combine harvester.

There is a second guy mentioned - some Chinese midfielder who has been shipped from Metz B to some Luxembourg team (the only place he's had significant game time) to some team in the Portuguese 2nd Division on free transfers. Hardly seems like the guy that'll be eating into this £7 million they were due to spend on Morelos either.

SFM‏ @TheSFMonitor17m17 minutes ago
Lord Davidson arguing for Dave King. Lords Carloway, Glennie & Drummond-Young hearing appeal.—————

SFM‏ @TheSFMonitor16m16 minutes ago
Davidson’s pitch basically is that the Bannatyne went too far, too fast in making decision. Should have asked for more info on NOAL and King’s finances.
—————

SFM‏ @TheSFMonitor13s14 seconds ago
David Johnston QC for ToP arguing along the lines of Lord Bannatyne in the CoS. Lord Glennie demonstrating a firm grasp of matters. Adjourned until 2pm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

King’s appeal rejected


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

King’s appeal rejected


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

So, practically what does this mean? He needs to pony up cash he doesnt have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green day

So, practically what does this mean? He needs to pony up cash he doesnt have?

---

To comply with the ruling he needs to offer all other NewHun shareholders 20p/share which means he has to have £11M (I think) ready to go. You wouldn't imagine they'd all take him up on it but ...

In practical terms I think it's more likely the Good (!) ship Sevco will sail on with the King pushed overboard. :na na:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...a435edbdb8.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radium

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ecc59bfc7e.jpg

The final instalment of the transfer story is released...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Who is the *****lian the Chinese are signing ?

Attilla the Hun ! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Who is the *****lian the Chinese are signing ?

Attilla the Hun ! :greengrin

---

Their two signings

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/nizamdin/profil/spieler/425173

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/chu-wang/profil/spieler/235976

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...b2e02bf255.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As posted by Easyjambo on the SFM website.
—————————
Lords Carloway, Glennie and Drummond-Young heard the appeal.

King was represented as before by Lord Davidson QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.

LD set out six points he wished to raise with the Court as his ground for appeal.
1, That the Court had discretion to do what they wanted rather than just seek compliance
2. The impecunious position of King
3. The reliance of the Lord Ordinary (Bannatyne) on it being in the public interest.
4. That Lord Banatyne went to far and too fast in coming to his conclusion based on the information available to him and that other avenues were open to him.
5. Enforcement served no practical purpose if the individual was unable to comply.
6. That the enforcement action should be dismissed (although he had a fallback position of asking that the matter be referred back to the Lord Ordinary for further proofs)

The above entailed highlighting the same arguments that he placed in front of Lord Bannatyne. He sought to obfuscate matters arguing on the basis of the meaning of words, e.g. “causing” NOAL to do some thing wasn’t the same as having “control”. He even described his own submissions as “excessively linguistic”

Lord Glennie in particular was quick to interject on a number of points, not least that there was no challenge made to the TOP and TAB findings themselves, only Lord Bannatyne’s decision.

In response David Johnston’s arguments were basically a reiteration of Lord Banantyne’s decision. He accepted a suggestion from Lord Carloway that the interlocutor should be amended to allow King or NOAL to make the offer, if the Court was so minded.

Proceedings ended just after lunch when Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.

Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.

TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.

---

:faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

As posted by Easyjambo on the SFM website.
—————————
Lords Carloway, Glennie and Drummond-Young heard the appeal.

King was represented as before by Lord Davidson QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.

LD set out six points he wished to raise with the Court as his ground for appeal.
1, That the Court had discretion to do what they wanted rather than just seek compliance
2. The impecunious position of King
3. The reliance of the Lord Ordinary (Bannatyne) on it being in the public interest.
4. That Lord Banatyne went to far and too fast in coming to his conclusion based on the information available to him and that other avenues were open to him.
5. Enforcement served no practical purpose if the individual was unable to comply.
6. That the enforcement action should be dismissed (although he had a fallback position of asking that the matter be referred back to the Lord Ordinary for further proofs)

The above entailed highlighting the same arguments that he placed in front of Lord Bannatyne. He sought to obfuscate matters arguing on the basis of the meaning of words, e.g. “causing” NOAL to do some thing wasn’t the same as having “control”. He even described his own submissions as “excessively linguistic”

Lord Glennie in particular was quick to interject on a number of points, not least that there was no challenge made to the TOP and TAB findings themselves, only Lord Bannatyne’s decision.

In response David Johnston’s arguments were basically a reiteration of Lord Banantyne’s decision. He accepted a suggestion from Lord Carloway that the interlocutor should be amended to allow King or NOAL to make the offer, if the Court was so minded.

Proceedings ended just after lunch when Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.

Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.

TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

30 seconds! Well, at least they gave it all the fullest consideration it deserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

As posted by Easyjambo on the SFM website.
—————————
Lords Carloway, Glennie and Drummond-Young heard the appeal.

King was represented as before by Lord Davidson QC and TOP by David Johnston QC.

LD set out six points he wished to raise with the Court as his ground for appeal.
1, That the Court had discretion to do what they wanted rather than just seek compliance
2. The impecunious position of King
3. The reliance of the Lord Ordinary (Bannatyne) on it being in the public interest.
4. That Lord Banatyne went to far and too fast in coming to his conclusion based on the information available to him and that other avenues were open to him.
5. Enforcement served no practical purpose if the individual was unable to comply.
6. That the enforcement action should be dismissed (although he had a fallback position of asking that the matter be referred back to the Lord Ordinary for further proofs)

The above entailed highlighting the same arguments that he placed in front of Lord Bannatyne. He sought to obfuscate matters arguing on the basis of the meaning of words, e.g. “causing” NOAL to do some thing wasn’t the same as having “control”. He even described his own submissions as “excessively linguistic”

Lord Glennie in particular was quick to interject on a number of points, not least that there was no challenge made to the TOP and TAB findings themselves, only Lord Bannatyne’s decision.

In response David Johnston’s arguments were basically a reiteration of Lord Banantyne’s decision. He accepted a suggestion from Lord Carloway that the interlocutor should be amended to allow King or NOAL to make the offer, if the Court was so minded.

Proceedings ended just after lunch when Lord Davidson revealed that King had sent an email to the RIFC Board at 10:15 this morning to advise them that NOAL would make the share purchase offer if the decision went against him.

Lord Glennie immediately responded that such an offer would suggest that the impecunious argument was wrong.

TOP’s Counsel had nothing to add, so the three Lords entered a huddle for 30 seconds, before announcing the the reclaiming motion (appeal) was rejected and the interlocutor(as amended) would stand.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Three Lords entering a Huddle Surprised King hasn't made an issue of this [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who’s paying for all these costs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronniekirk

Three Lords entering a Huddle Surprised King hasn't made an issue of this [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

A hurdle ? Tim Lords at work. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Whizz

Who’s paying for all these costs

---

King will be paying his own although I’m sure he will find a way to pass on to the sevconians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

30 seconds!!!

and it can take 5 minutes for VAR to decide on a decision.....

Frivolous appeal anyone? Should financial penalty be imposed for wasting the courts time? I don't imagine such an august gathering of lords, even in this gig economy, would come cheap.

https://twitter.com/bbcdouglasf/stat...755826177?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-43231582


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk