Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I am quite happy to be different to anyone that could come away with the pile of shite to be fair.

Tedi, you're going to have to start reading your posts out loud before posting. Try it with the above and you'll see this is well-meant advice. Ripping the pish is fun, but I'd prefer you not to handicap yourself.

[No8.]

Just reading on Follow Follow that Paul Murray may be blocked from joining the Ibrox board by SFA rules...Incredible that we have an Easdale who is supposedly a fit and proper person but Murray would be blocked...Unbelievable

[stonedsailor]

Do you know who won the league in 1918?

Give him an easy one like the 5 SPL stars.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I am quite happy to be different to anyone that could come away with the pile of shite to be fair.

Tedi, you're going to have to start reading your posts out loud before posting. Try it with the above and you'll see this is well-meant advice. Ripping the pish is fun, but I'd prefer you not to handicap yourself.

No...I read that pile of shite again....I am quite happy to completely different from the author.

Words seriously fail me. Like fish in a fucking barrel, I swear.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Just reading on Follow Follow that Paul Murray may be blocked from joining the Ibrox board by SFA rules...Incredible that we have an Easdale who is supposedly a fit and proper person but Murray would be blocked...Unbelievable

It is strange, to be fair - they've already ridden roughshod over most of the points of the fucking LAW regarding phoenix companies - why would this be any different?

[Bearwithme]

Just reading on Follow Follow that Paul Murray may be blocked from joining the Ibrox board by SFA rules...Incredible that we have an Easdale who is supposedly a fit and proper person but Murray would be blocked...Unbelievable

Highly unlikely Murray would be blocked.

[Bearwithme]

I think he was on the board when Rangers went into admin so not allowed back on.

I'm not sure he was on the board at that time. In any case it's at the discretion of the SFA Board and it would be perverse to bar Murray for Whyte did when Murray opposed Whyte's takeover.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Bearwithme

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Is this not at the SFA`s discretion? I am sure they have a rule that reads something like that.

Serious point - I'm not sure whether he was around at the time, but it would probably fall foul of the Phoenix regulations. Not that ICBINR haven't ignored almost every bullet point in that LAW already, of course. Remember, they're a new company, whatever your take on the continuation fantasy.

[stonedsailor]

Do you remember Alan Duff?

I think he was on the board when Rangers went into admin so not allowed back on.

Aye the mid to late 80's was when I started going, our school coach in Kingussie was a Caley legend, Freddy Neild he used to take us to matches quite often and I followed Caley properly when I moved up to Sneck in '88. Imissed out on much of the last three years through going to nautical college and the sea in 91. I think it must be nostalgia but Ihave stronger feelings for Caley than ICT and I have been an ICT fan for more than twice as long.

[stonedsailor]

Serious point - I'm not sure whether he was around at the time, but it would probably fall foul of the Phoenix regulations. Not that ICBINR haven't ignored almost every bullet point in that LAW already, of course. Remember, they're a new company, whatever your take on the continuation fantasy.

Yeah, if a director was in service with the insolvent company it is a criminal offence for him/her to become a director of a company who uses the same name or trading name as the liquidated company within 5 years of liquidation.

Nice to see the Sevconians try to spin it as the big bad SFA trying to hamper them again.

http://www.mondaq.com/x/86896/Corporate+Crime/Liability+Of+Directors+Of+Phoenix+Companies

[AberdeenBud]

I'm not sure he was on the board at that time. In any case it's at the discretion of the SFA Board and it would be perverse to bar Murray for Whyte did when Murray opposed Whyte's takeover.

The whole board(including Murray, John Grieg and the glib and shameless liar Dave King) all did nothing while there was a campaign of willful and organised withholding of tax revenues from RFC.

The are all guilty. No matter how times bluenoses try to rewrite history this 'It was all one man' stuff is complete garbage.

[AberdeenBud]

7. That the Board of Directors of Rangers FC immediately prior to 6 May

2011 comprised Messrs Alastair Johnston (Chairman), Martin Bain

(Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director) Donald McIntyre (

Executive Finance Director), David King, Paul Murray, Donald Muir,

Michael McGill, John McClelland, and John Greig (all Non Executive

Directors).

[AberdeenBud]

35. That whilst the IBC and other members of the Board of Directors of

Rangers FC were strongly opposed to the purchase of shares from

MIHL by Mr Craig Whyte personally or through any of his companies,

they did not raise or successfully maintain any substantial level of

resistance nor public awareness of their very real concerns, but

instead continued to engage in discussions with Mr Craig Whyte

aimed at enhancing the terms of the share purchase agreement

Edited August 5, 2013 by AberdeenBud

[AberdeenBud]

71. That as a result of the discussion and the perceptions of both Mr John

McClelland and Mr John Greig arising from the absence of any

management accounts or financial information about Rangers FC

being provided to them, the failure to convene any Board meetings

and Mr McClelland’s exclusion from the offices, they both arrived at

the conclusion that they were now being so marginalised and

excluded from the governance of Rangers that their position as

directors was untenable.

72. That Mr John McClelland (Non Executive Director) and Mr John Grieg

(Non Executive Director) both resigned as directors on 17 October

2011.

73. That shortly after the date of their resignation, Mr John McClelland

was aware of rumours outside Rangers FC about late payment of

taxes. These rumours increased in the course of November 2011 and

became rumours of non payment of taxes. He did not discuss these

rumours with any continuing director of Rangers FC or take any other

action.

Edited August 5, 2013 by AberdeenBud

[AberdeenBud]

A living person has a mind which can have knowledge

or intention or be negligent and he has handsto carry out his intentions. A

corporation has none of these: it must act through living persons, though not

always one or the same person. Then the person who acts is not speaking or

acting for the company. He is acting as the company and his mind which directs

his acts is the mind of the company.

There is no question of the company being

vicariously liable. He is not acting as a servant, representative, agent or delegate.

He is an embodiment of the company or, one could say, he hears and

speaks through the persona of the company, within his appropriate sphere, and

his mind is the mind of the company. If it is a guilty mind then that guilt is the guilt

of the company

Edited August 5, 2013 by AberdeenBud

[AberdeenBud]

The Tribunal was nonetheless clear in its

assessment of the evidence and in the inferences that it was entitled to draw from

facts established on the evidence that beyond the identification principle the acts

and omissions of directors and senior managers of Rangers FC between 6 May 2011

and 6 March 2012 were such as to prove on a balance of probabilities that certain

directors and / or senior managers were entirely aware that Mr Craig Whyte, a

director of Rangers FC was engaged in a deliberate programme of non payment of

taxes, non-cooperation with and frustration of the attempts of the auditors

appointed by Rangers FC to carry out the annual inspection of the books of account

and preparation of the statutory annual accounts which required to be lodged by

31 December 2011, and non- cooperation with and frustration of the attempts by

Ken Olverman the Financial Controller to be allowed to access and distribute

information which was necessary for the preparation of briefings and periodic

reports and management accounts.

These matters all frustrated preparation of the

annual accounts and prevented the holding of the annual general meeting which

required to be held by 1 January 2012. From May 2011 Mr David King was aware

that he was being excluded from the governance of the company and he appears to

have done little about it except repeat his demands to Mr Olverman and Mr Craig

Whyte for information.

Edited August 5, 2013 by AberdeenBud

[AberdeenBud]

Similarly, Mr John McClelland and Mr John Greig

resigned in October because they knew that they were being excluded and

marginalised at the same time as they had great concerns for the governance of

Rangers FC and were deeply suspicious of Mr Craig Whyte before and after his

acquisition of the majority shareholding from MIHL. Other than resignation there

was no eveidence that either of these directors took any steps with any person or

authority to do anything about what they knew was happening. Criticism might be

levelled at these directors and others.

Mr Olverman as Financial Controller

occupied a very senior role within Rangers FC and as a matter of admission he knew

of the non payment of taxes and the somewhat strange practices and secrecy

which was the deliberate policy advanced by Mr Craig Whyte. Though it was no

part in the matter before us, and did not impact on our decision on the complaints

which were before us, Mr Ken Olverman was also aware of an apparently unusual

transaction involving Ticketus which had a substantial significance in the exercise of

any fiduciary duty which he, as a senior officer of the company, owed towards the

company, rather than owed towards Mr Craig Whyte.

Edited August 5, 2013 by AberdeenBud

[AberdeenBud]

The question might be “What could they do?”. The answer is “They could have

made public the activities of Mr Craig Whyte of which they were aware or ought to

have been aware”. Their fiduciary duties owed to the company might for example

have led them to disclose to the PLUS Stock Exchange that no accounts were likely

or that no AGM was likely to be held on account of the conduct of Mr Craig Whyte

and that there was a complete breakdown of the corporate governance of Rangers

FC.

These are matters which did not determine the liability of Rangers FC but which

bore upon the question as to what extent it could, with merit, claim that it was

powerless, and that the sole responsibility was that of Mr Craig Whyte.

[AberdeenBud]

All one man.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93212354/SFA-Rangers-Note-of-Reasons

[No8.]

Despite the inexplicable Reddie from Aberdeen Bud i kinda of agree with him to a certain extent. It wasn't all one man and as i have stated before if i knew Whyte wasn't paying any creditors it is fair to assume that every board member knew yet said and did nothing.

That all said it is also unbelievable that a well known gangster is allowed on the board yet a genuine businessman is not even though his only 'crime' as far as we know was remaining silent.