Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Ozyhibby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So we have a club playing in the SPFL who may be built on the proceeds on crime? And who's assets will revert to BDO should Charlie lose his case?
You would think Sevco would want him to have the best legal advice available unless it was all about short term cash flow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The liquidator could apply for the transfer of assets to be reversed. In other words, all of the assets would revert to him. He would then have to sell them off for the benefit of shareholders.

Taking that to its ultimate, if there was a surplus (which is possible, although unlikely), that would go to.... the shareholders, including Mr. Whyte :)

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The liquidator could apply for the transfer of assets to be reversed. In other words, all of the assets would revert to him. He would then have to sell them off for the benefit of shareholders.

Taking that to its ultimate, if there was a surplus (which is possible, although unlikely), that would go to.... the shareholders, including Mr. Whyte :)

Even if Sevco win some of these individual battles, it's hard to see them surviving all of this intact. It's going to be very interesting watching it all pan out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibee87]

So the outcome of this court hearing is only to see if RIFC will pay greens legal fees, the decision on tweets 1/2 r.e proceeds of crime, will be heard another day

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So the outcome of this court hearing is only to see if RIFC will pay greens legal fees, the decision on tweets 1/2 r.e proceeds of crime, will be heard another day

Yes, that was just Charlie's QC explaining what's at stake and why Sevco really need to pay his fees and be hoping he wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The liquidator could apply for the transfer of assets to be reversed. In other words, all of the assets would revert to him. He would then have to sell them off for the benefit of shareholders.

Taking that to its ultimate, if there was a surplus (which is possible, although unlikely), that would go to.... the shareholders, including Mr. Whyte :)

I'm hoping you are forensically examining Phil latest blog as it was way beyond my pay grade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So the outcome of this court hearing is only to see if RIFC will pay greens legal fees, the decision on tweets 1/2 r.e proceeds of crime, will be heard another day

Yes.

If Green & chums are found guilty in the upcoming criminal trial then that would open the door for yet another court action by BDO to lay claim to the assets (I think).

[portycabbage]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The clause in his settlement with RIFC says words to the effect that RIFC will pay legal costs resulting from his time as Chief exec of the club. So RIFC are trying to use the club/company distinction to say that the clause only applies to the period after the asset transfer from RFC plc (now in liquidation) to Sevco (now TRFC). Most of the charges relate to before that date.

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm hoping you are forensically examining Phil latest blog as it was way beyond my pay grade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I missed it in the flurry of stenography from Perry Mason.

I'll have a look....

[Hibee87]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, that was just Charlie's QC explaining what's at stake and why Sevco really need to pay his fees and be hoping he wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes.

If Green & chums are found guilty in the upcoming criminal trial then that would open the door for yet another court action by BDO to lay claim to the assets (I think).

Cheers folks, the thing i really don't get is the time scale here. The transfer of the assets being dodgy was raised all over the internet almost immediately when it happened 3 years ago. Why has it taken so long to go to court!! ach well, its funny seeing the dirtys squirm more and more each day

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

They're arguing about Green's position and how it relates to the clause in his termination agreement. So they're arguing that when Sevco became the owner of "the club", Green became the Chief Exec of "the club", irrespective of his position in "the company" either before or after the asset purchase.

[Ozyhibby]

So far, it looks like Sevco are trying to get out on a technicality, that Green was employed by the company and they were only purchased by the company in 2012 and some charges relate to before that.
I'm not sure how that helps as they are still tied to the Company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

To be recognised in law as seperate from the company, surely they would need some legal presence seperate from Sevco Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cheers folks, the thing i really don't get is the time scale here. The transfer of the assets being dodgy was raised all over the internet almost immediately when it happened 3 years ago. Why has it taken so long to go to court!! ach well, its funny seeing the dirtys squirm more and more each day

There's a world of difference between something being "dodgy" and it being criminal. That it has taken so long to get to Court probably reflects the various estimates being thrown around... "100,000 pages of evidence", "longest trial in Scots history" being 2... as well as the sheer complexity of what's going on.

[Ozyhibby]

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...iament-square/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm hoping you are forensically examining Phil latest blog as it was way beyond my pay grade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What Phil, or rather his 2 pals, say is reasonable.

It's very difficult to look at a set of numbers like that and "know" the truth. Different users look at accounts from different perspectives. If, for example, I was looking at them from a non-football perspective, I'd be saying..."yeah, things seem okay, but can we have a proper look at your forecasts?"

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Parties in Charles Green vs Rangers International football club called back into court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown points out that in the Rangers IPO document the "prospect of future litigation" was specifically mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

: Brown on Green's asset purchase: "The risk that someone might seek to unpick this transaction was clearly anticipated"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Brown: that while the assets of Rangers had been purchased for £6.75m they had later been valued at over £20m,"

1/2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: This, Brown says could lead to the risk the transaction would be challenged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Haymaker]

I am, officially, lost.

[Ozyhibby]

@STVGrant: CG lawyer: What Sevco bought was a club, stadium, assets etc without right to play football in this country. That was a gamble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am, officially, lost.

No worries, just enjoy the drama.

popcorn.jpg

[Ozyhibby]

Nothing happening just now as they are talking about up coming case against Sevco 7, so reporting restrictions are in place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[southsider]

So who do we want to win ? If Green wins the rangers pay his costs but if Green loses then it may be a criminal act and the assets returned to the liquidor ? Or do I have that all wrong ?

[portycabbage]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They're arguing about Green's position and how it relates to the clause in his termination agreement. So they're arguing that when Sevco became the owner of "the club", Green became the Chief Exec of "the club", irrespective of his position in "the company" either before or after the asset purchase.

So Green became the chief executive of a non-company? Sevco and RIFC are both companies and have boards, so how was Green - or anyone else - supposed to be chief exec of something that isn't a company, given that "the club" is supposed to be something entirely different. I'm being rhetorical by the way, obviously the whole thing's nonsense!

[portycabbage]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am, officially, lost.

Allow me to summarise-

[Ozyhibby]

@jamesdoleman: Lots of shaking of heads and whispering from the RIFC table at this section of evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So who do we want to win ? If Green wins the rangers pay his costs but if Green loses then it may be a criminal act and the assets returned to the liquidor ? Or do I have that all wrong ?

Be greedy.
You can have both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk