Think some of the charges relate to the purchase of the assets so Green has to prove he was director of Sevco Scotland at the timeQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Think some of the charges relate to the purchase of the assets so Green has to prove he was director of Sevco Scotland at the timeQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar now moving on to Appeal court judgment in Andy Coulson case
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge asks if a hypothetical was embezzling funds from a company would that be seen as having occurred "in the course of his duties"?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar says his case is very different as Green was acting "in the interests of the company" and not just for personal gain
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Blogger and columnist Angela Haggerty sacked by the Herald for supporting Spiers?
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/01...ilure-exposed/
Green has a clause in his severance agreement saying the club will pay his legal bills for actions related to his time as "chief executive of Rangers Football Club". The New Huns are trying to argue this doesn't apply to his time as Chief Exec of the company when it was called Sevco Scotland but only to the time after it changed its name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Dewar says again Green would "never have been in this position if he had never been CEO of the two entities."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Much shaking of heads on the Rangers side of the court at that last comment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar says a legal idemnity would be pointless unless it also covered criminal charges.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar said that when agreement signed "it was known that legal proceedings were likely" asks court "what was in the mind of the parties"?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar says there is more to running a football club than putting a team on a pitch "it's a multi-million pound business"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Football is a business unlike any other" Dewar says "but still needs a successful corporate entity" to raise funds etc,
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Sevco Scotland was only Sevco Scotland from 29/5/2012 until 31/7/2012.
Besides when does a contract with a company ever list all the names that the company has ever had.
Charles Green was "The face of the entity" his counsel tells the court
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it not about time they decided whether they're the same club or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Dewar notes appeal court ruled in favour of News International paying Andy Coulson's legal bills during his criminal trial for phone hacking
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/01...ilure-exposed/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This could be embarrassing for New Hun having to argue in court that they are nothing to do with Old Hun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
Dewar notes appeal court ruling in Coulson case made no distinction between civil an criminal cases over legal idemnity clause
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar says there is no moral issue over paying legal bills in a criminal case, adds "The legal aid board does it every day"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Judge on Green "He was the chief executive of Rangers football club, the question is, what does that mean?"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Court now discussing structure of Rangers group of companies
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it just me, or is this the first of the many cases so far against sevco (by MASH etc) that seem to have a reasonable argument?
Judge notes Green's indemnity agreement does not mention "associated companies"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This isn't MASH but this lawyer does appear to be presenting a much better case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar " you can only be chairman of an entity that has a legal personality:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar "No-one knows what the Rangers football club is, but it has no legal personality"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dewar " the Rangers football club does not exist, it is an idea in people's minds, a myth of continuity"
LOL
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rangers football club is the "trading arm" of Rangers football club Ltd judge suggests
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oooft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I take it they'll be upping security at the Dewar residence then?
Dewar notes that the corporate entity is the body recognised by SFA, contrary arguments "exist only on the minds of die hard supporters"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=Ozyhibby;4563761]Dewar " the Rangers football club does not exist, it is an idea in people's minds, a myth of continuity"
Bang !
Nail hit firmly on the head.
Who are you tweeting from Ozy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Dewar "Sevco Scotland and it alone bought the assets and carried on the business"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
James Doleman againQuote:
Originally Posted by underscore
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who are you tweeting from Ozy?
James Doleman is tweeting from the Court.
Counsel for Charles Green ends his submissions, Rangers Advocate will respond after lunch at 1.55
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Excellent work from Green lawyer. You would think MASH would sign this guy up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
This story is way bigger than the court case that's running just now. It's a really worrying development in terms of freedom of the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
The Herald have been "leant on" and two problematic journalists have been dumped.
Now I am first to admit Haggerty's association with the horrible Phil McGhiollabain is something I find personally distasteful but that does not alter the fact that she is a decent journalist and her Sunday columns were generally well crafted pieces.
This smacks of Rangers flexing their muscles and taking out a journalist who with good reason after many personal attacks from their troglodyte fans, holds them in contempt.
It is one thing journalists being biased to a football club as with the weegie tabloids but it's quite another the directors of a football team exerting influence on a paper's editorial decisions. The fact that one football club can wield this sort of power and influence over a media outlet is something I find deeply troubling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Take it he doesn't have a column at the Herald 😁
What exactly was she sacked for? Surely she has some kind of unfair dismissal case.
It's standard practice. They switch between either depending on the situation. The new Rangers still haven't paid the £250k fine for the 2nd letters involved in the EBT situation because they're a new club.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Responsibility for the content of the paper is integral to the definition of editor. If it's published in the paper it is either endorsed by the editor or he/she resigns (in circumstances like this).Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie1892
The fact that the editor has not resigned indicates he endorses the apology.
That line from the judge was funnier than a whole series of Miranda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Pretty sure she'll be freelance, so there won't be an unfair dismissal case. She may have a claim for breach of contract, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gre...w-with-rangers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Apologies, can't copy tweets this afternoon. Sounds like a better day for Green so far though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scotland and its football needs this one on record in a court so it can finally decide what to do with this national embarrassment hiding behind a football club, got to be easier if the old one is formally dead and the relevant history is voided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
Walker (for RIFC) says court must distinguish between crimes carried out for personal gain as opposed to seeking an advantage for his employers.
Walker says Green's case is "not even close to the line" of consideration. Notes alleged crimes happened before he became CEO
Lord Malcolm asks if Green was not the "embodiment" of Rangers as CEO.
Walker disagrees
Walker says he disagrees Rangers knew legal action was likely to be taken against Green when agreement signed
Walker says "no-one could have contemplated picking up the tab for this sort of crime."
Charles Green used the same firm of solicitors as Andy Coulson to draw up indemnity agreement court hears
Further discussion of the criminal charges by Rangers' QC relating to the scope of the indemnity clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Rangers QC says the clause must require more than Green simply to have been in office at club in order to cover him.
Rangers QC argues the clause has not been designed to cover indemnity for criminal acts.
Judge continuing point on Green perhaps being "embodiment" of Rangers. For example, he would represent club at SFA.
Judge "thinking aloud" asks if there is distinction between alleged crimes to benefit company or to benefit individual with regards clause
Judge: Suppose he had tried to bribe an opposition goalkeeper. That wouldn't fall within duties of a chief executive of a football club.
Rangers QC advancing point of distinction between committing a crime for a person's own benefit or for benefit of company in his duties.
Plenty hypothetical back and forth now between judges and Rangers QC over situations where indemnity would or wouldn't apply.
Rangers QC now discussing elements of the criminal allegations.
Rangers QC argues that it is too simplistic simply to look at the alleged crime. It is important to take all conduct into consideration.
Rangers QC now debating the construction of the clause in the compromise agreement.
Court resumes. QC for Rangers now outlining the position of the defendants in the Charles Green legal fees appeal
Why would anyone want to take on a liability for someone elses negligence? Walker asks the court.
Walker says that the indemnity clause "does not use clear words"
Walker moves on to an area covered by reporting restrictions.
Over to you, Grunt.... I have a last-minute Tax Return to do :)
If she was freelance she's f***ed.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
Careful what you wish for. The company that owns Hibs was incorporated in 1905. :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
:confused: Interesting one, this is what businesses normally have professional Indemnity, Fidelity guarantee and Directors & Officers insurance cover for - I suspect in this case no underwriter would touch it, or the the rangers couldn't afford or didn't arrange the cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Fully aware, also left not much debt and no sectarian whiff:aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
My point being... does that mean we have never won the wee Cup? :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
Wilson says Rangers football club is a "different entity" from the company.
Wilson now moves on to the nature of Rangers football club
Lord Malcolm notes that the original judgment "does not agonise on the nature of Rangers football club"
Lord Malcolm asks Walker if he is not concentrating too much on cronology rather than principle?
"I don't think this is going to work Mr Walker" judge tells RFC advocate
Walker says the club is the "trading entity"
Judge notes that the agreement says Green was CEO of "Rangers football club" not "Rangers football club ltd"
Lord Malcolm tells Walker "he cant have it both ways" leading to laughter in court
Wilson "in common parlance people do not talk about Rangers football club meaning Sevco Scotland"
Wilson says he does not accept "Rangers football club is a myth" but adds that "it doesnt matter" in this case.
Wilson 'there is a danger in lawyers trying to decide what a football club is" even though "this might he of great interest to the press"
Good work, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
For those reading, though, these Tweets should be read in reverse order.
Please note these tweet posts need to be read bottom up. (Damn!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
'It will be interesting to see what the SPFL, the NUJ, Scottish PEN and the wider Scottish football community’s response is to this'
What the SPFL will do about it ??? Aha .... ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha - probably the same as they've done with EVERYTHING since the Hun were caught cheating - SFA !!
Rangers QC refers to Wikipedia.... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Walker says that when Green was CEO he made a "distinction between club and company" cites Wikipedia, Judge says they can accept that
Lady Dorrian asks "why would they do that?" I can't answer that, Walker says, there are different people in charge now.
Lord Malcolm says Rangers only talked about two different entities 'so they could still say they won the league"
Just catching up. Does not appear to be going well for Sevco but judges are funny sorts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I've ditched the Tax Return. This is great entertainment.
Is it due to be decided today?
Notes- these are now in order so can be read top down. Also I have changed to quoting Grant Russell - he seems to be clearer in his reporting.
----------------------
Rangers QC now moves on to argument over the interpretation of the term "Rangers" in this case
Rangers QC says there has been a consistent approach that reference to Rangers FC is a football entity and not a limited company
Rangers QC says there is a danger over lawyers trying to prove whether a club "exists"
Judge asks, for purposes of clause, whether it matters whether intention was Green was chief exec of "club" or "company"
Judge asks if club was owned by an individual person, you would talk about Rangers FC, not Joe Bloggs
Rangers QC says when people say Rangers, they aren't referring to a limited company
Rangers QC says he would not accept previous submission a club is a "myth"
Rangers QC says claimant position is Green was never chief exec of "club" as it never existed
Rangers QC says neither party claims Green was ever chief exec of the "club"
Judge says Rangers' argument over club v company indemnity coverage "isn't going to work"
Argument from Rangers here is that if "club" didn't exist, how could clause cover time prior to Green being an officer of a company?
Judge asks if Rangers ask if they should "just put a red pen through that part of the clause?"
Rangers QC argues indemnity intention did not define the limited company so that it covered Green in any action taken by a governing body
Rangers QC says Green, while in power, saw clear need to continually draw distinction between club and company
Rangers QC makes reference to ASA decision & LNS
Rangers argument therefore is that the indemnity clause did not make club v company distinction so frequently made in public statements
Judge says club didn't "spring to existence" on date of transfer in June
Rangers QC says it is important what parties who wrote clause defined Rangers as
Rangers QC again highlights the constant club v company distinctions made by club under Green, yet made no such distinction in clause
Rangers QC suggests a proof should be called so those who created clause can explain why they didn't make the distinction as per usual
Rangers QC says if court doesn't want proof, it is clear what those in charge meant
Not sure. Last time it took a couple of days.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bugger I just read that bottom to top and it made no sense.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Just to digress-this shows clearly the difficulty in the proposals for "fans" to own "clubs".
Rangers secretary James Blair interrupts QC to urge clarification that compromise agreement signed after Green stopped being chief of TRFCL.
Green, Rangers QC claims, stepped down as "Sevco" chief exec at same time he became RIFC chief exec in December 2013.
Judge hypothetically floats idea clause may not specifically state "limited" because Sevco company existed before it acquired "the club".
Judge says he doesn't like prospect of sending clause definition argument to a proof. Says they should be able to settle it themselves.
Judge says they seek definite confirmation of dates Green became/stopped being director, chief exec etc. To be supplied at later date.
Rangers QC concludes. Green QC requests to be able to make further comment.
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
Dewar making submission on area covered by reporting restrictions.
Court rises, submissions concluded. Decision will come in due course.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Court rises, submissions concluded. Decision will come in due course.
(Game over for today).
If it makes you feel any less guilty, I have ditched two CPA firms in two years. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
M'lud, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Not your own I hope !Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
According to Companies House, Green was chief exec. of Sevco/TRFC from 29/5/2012 until 31/5/2013 .Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
He was chief exec. of RIFC from 4/12/2012 until 31/5/2013.
Where does this leaving one to join the other, or December 2013 come from.
The Herald and Sunday Herald newspaper are worse than The Sun or the Record. The latter do not pretend to be serious newspapers. Total disgrace to drop Spiers and Haggerty due to bluenose pressure.
I'd love Spiers to come out with the name of the Director who said that "The Billy Boys" is a great song. His word against the Hun board though so I doubt he will.
Though he seems to have missed the bit where Lord Bob Malcolm suggested that the Huns were manipulating the number of entities involved to ensure that they kept their old league titles. Wonder if Grant feared for his job if he tweeted that? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Hun counsel giving wrong information to the court - shirley not?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
some more info re. the journalists: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday...stop-offensive
Per James Doleman: Lord Malcolm says Rangers only talked about two different entities 'so they could still say they won the league".Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I would love him to have hit the button on his voice recorder. Maybe he is waiting for the right moment to upload to youtube.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
Whatever way you slice it we've won it at least once:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Hibs - club formed 1875, <win cup>, disbanded 1891, reformed 1892, <win cup>, incorporated 1905, continues to present
So the legal entity from 1892 to present is the same and has 1 cup win in that period. Whether you view the 1892 Hibs as the same as the 1875-1891 Hibs is murky but there isn't a definite end as per a liquidation.
cf the Huns - club formed 1873 (or some claim 1872), incorporated 1899, consigned to liquidation 2012
You're on the windup.....right?:aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore
Nope [emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by robinp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by robinp
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/sta...936384?lang=en
AlternativelyQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
https://twitter.com/STVGrant/status/693091978767159296
Different tangent, but I'm beginning to see why Andy Goram was so important to RangersQuote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
one andy goram for the company and another Andy Goram for the club
#TwoAndyGorams
What are the odds it's Park. Why would you risk a business reputation and try and blackmail a paper into a retraction for a friend? Pretty sure they get no business from the Celtic minded but there will be many others where they do, this is the type of move Ratner made......Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
There seems to be Twitter speculation that the Director is John Gilligan?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Rourke3
As a matter of interest, there seems to be a concerted campaign to ensure that any tweet which backs Spiers is met with a barrage of replies saying that he is lying about the quote from the Rangers Director. Appears too consistent to be random responses.
Michael Gray @GrayInGlasgow 31m31 minutes ago Herald deputy editor @BarclayMcBain has warned staff not to comment on sacking @AngelaHaggerty/@GrahamSpiers to protect papers' "integrity".
https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/st...29422338134016
No, not at all. Try editing a newspaper or magazine in the Middle East - copy gets changed by the owners on a regular basis and in my extensive experience, editorial resignations do not follow as a matter of course. I've never seen it happen, and I've been about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. ****gy
Here in Scotland, when I was working at the Scotsman, then editor Iain Martin had a piece pulled by the editorial director. Martin was furious, but he didn't walk and he didn't endorse the decision.
'The fact that the editor has not resigned indicates he endorses the apology' is a total non sequitur, certainly in the 18 years I've been involved in journalism in about ten markets on three continents.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharIotteFakes 46m46 minutes ago I am in possession of incriminating emails from the Sevco board member, regarding views on singing of The Billy Boys. @Herald_Editor
That's interesting, I googled that Charlotte fakes and first thing was a daily record article saying this account leaked tapes and documents a year or 2 back which is being used as evidence in some cases against rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.m
If it's the same Twitter account they may actually have the name
Douglas park
Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk