Ken Fitlike Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=28380 A zinger at the end . l'm away to write an article about FIFA. Stinks a bit less 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 James Doleman – @jamesdoleman Judge notes that references to "the club" in documents could refer to the company Sevco Scotland became: "Rangers Football Club Limited I think we could get an answer to the continuation debate soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Trying to screw the man who saved them out of financial assistance he rightly deserved 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=289297#entry1062979491 Favourite comment BF2, on 12 Nov 2015 - 09:11 AM, said: what exactly are we to be punished for that we haven't been punished for already? Don't think there has been one, has there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Would it not be fantastic if this action by Prince Charlie brings us a legal judgement proving what we all suspect. Sevco Scotland bought some assets and became a club called Rangers Football Club Limited fielding a team calling themselves Rangers Football Club and not as the **** like to believe that a company called Sevco Scotland bought a football club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 15 minutes agoRIFC itself replied that it was the same club, highlighting it was a recognisable identity able to be operated and owned.Grant Russell @STVGrant 15m15 minutes agoRIFC: There are comments from Charles Green himself that he was referring to "the club".Grant Russell @STVGrant 15m15 minutes agoLord Doherty: there are two arguments. It could be that the club is a club; or that it is a limited companyGrant Russell @STVGrant 15m15 minutes agoLord Doherty says Rangers response to complaint over "most successful club" was not a letter of admission.Grant Russell @STVGrant 15m15 minutes agoLord Doherty asks whether the club v company debate is one he can deal with without evidence.Grant Russell @STVGrant 35m35 minutes agoRIFC: Approaching words used in correct context, indemnity only should run from June 2012 at point of acquisition.Grant Russell @STVGrant 36m36 minutes agoRIFC: It does not follow that the club should indemnify CG for alleged actions for when he was merely director of Sevco Scotland.Grant Russell @STVGrant 38m38 minutes agoIn the clause, what did the parties mean by chief executive of Rangers FC? CG only became that at point of acquisition of club by SevcoGrant Russell @STVGrant 41m41 minutes agoPoint of club v company debate to draw clear dates in timeline when Green was chairman of "club" and chair of "company".Grant Russell @STVGrant 43m43 minutes agoRIFC: It is an association football club which has a continued existence, regardless of entities which come to own it from time to time.Grant Russell @STVGrant 44m44 minutes agoLord Doherty: "How would you define the club in legal terms?"Grant Russell @STVGrant 44m44 minutes agoLord Doherty counters that you can't have a contact with "The Rangers Football Club".Grant Russell @STVGrant 45m45 minutes agoRIFC now arguing that Sevco Scotland "acquired The Rangers Football Club", which it owns and operates. Making club v company distinction.Grant Russell @STVGrant 48m48 minutes agoDebate continuing on liability of RIFC to pay, with regards to the nature of several of the charges.Grant Russell @STVGrant 1h1 hour agoRIFC: Company being asked to give indemnity which has consequence of paying fees for actions unrelated to interests of the companyGrant Russell @STVGrant 1h1 hour ago"If it was intended for the clause to cover such a circumstance, one would expect it to be put in such clear language."Grant Russell @STVGrant 1h1 hour agoRelevant clause in Green's "compromise agreement" is 8.3. Indemnity to pay "any reasonable legal costs" arising.Grant Russell @STVGrant 1h1 hour agoRangers' lawyer suggests to Lord Doherty to consider that the dates of some charges may pre-date Green's contract and the relevant clauseGrant Russell @STVGrant 2h2 hours agoRangers' lawyer advancing argument for case to be suspended until after criminal proceedings.Grant Russell @STVGrant 2h2 hours agoLive tweeting is permitted from the Green v Rangers case but Lord Doherty reminds of contempt of court order currently in place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 @jamesdolemanBrown cites the Coulson case to reject the idea that the issue of costs rested on a judgment about the strength of the defendants case.Brown says he will "come back to the whole Rangers Football club issue in some detail."Brown says Charles Green "acquired the assets of Rangers for Sevco Scotland, which holds them to this day." OOOOOOOOOFT..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 "Assets" and "Acquired" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyWellFan Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 So a football club can never die? Is THird Lanark lying behind a bush somewhere? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WILLIEA Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) So a football club can never die? Is THird Lanark lying behind a bush somewhere? They're at the back of my cupboard, beside an old subbuteo set , Abercorn, Linthouse and other defunct Glasgow area clubs Edited November 12, 2015 by WILLIEA 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=289297#entry1062979491 Favourite comment BF2, on 12 Nov 2015 - 09:11 AM, said: what exactly are we to be punished for that we haven't been punished for already? Don't think there has been one, has there? There was the 250k fine off the back of the Nimmo Smith escapade. Although I don't think it's been paid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Now that is an oooft moment. The **** told us that this was not possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObserverFromAfar Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Spot on from Judges. If alleged activity occured whilst Green was not an employee of club/company, how can an employment contract which included 'insurance' against legal whilst he was an employee cover him? ".... common sense..." Will be surprised if company/club need to foot bill in these circumstances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How could he not have had a contract with "the club"?! He owned it! Who gives out contacts for the clubs?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyc13 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Mr Wolffe, Mr Green, Mr Whyte, Mr Brown....Reservoir ***s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 James Doleman @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago Brown: If the charge against Green is proved "the business and assets [of Rangers] would be the proceeds of crime," James Doleman @jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes ago Brown if Green was found guilty "The company would have big problems" argues sound commercial reasons for granting legal idemnity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Spot on from Judges. If alleged activity occured whilst Green was not an employee of club/company, how can an employment contract which included 'insurance' against legal whilst he was an employee cover him? ".... common sense..." Will be surprised if company/club need to foot bill in these circumstances. If they don't foot the bill and Sir Prince Charles of Green is found to have acted in a fraudulent manner whilst acquiring the assets then BDO get them back. As I have said all along. It is in "Rangers" interests to defend Green. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 If they don't foot the bill and Sir Prince Charles of Green is found to have acted in a fraudulent manner whilst acquiring the assets then BDO get them back. As I have said all along. It is in "Rangers" interests to defend Green. It's almost as if the board are trying to manufacture a situation that makes them look blameless when it all goes wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Spot on from Judges. If alleged activity occured whilst Green was not an employee of club/company, how can an employment contract which included 'insurance' against legal whilst he was an employee cover him? ".... common sense..." Will be surprised if company/club need to foot bill in these circumstances. Is this a normal clause in a contract anyway? Would noone at newco have been hearing alarm bells at green wanting cover legal costs? Maybe it's a common practice for directors I dunno.....but my first instinct if I was employing someone n they wanted legal cover would be to ask what they had been upto?? All very odd.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObserverFromAfar Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 James Doleman @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago Brown: If the charge against Green is proved "the business and assets [of Rangers] would be the proceeds of crime," James Doleman @jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes ago Brown if Green was found guilty "The company would have big problems" argues sound commercial reasons for granting legal idemnity. But this is not deciding outcome of criminal case, let alone the consequences. Only if legal fees incurred by Green need to be paid by club/company. Don't get carried away too soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.