LNS – A Summary

Avatar ByTrisidium

LNS – A Summary

 

cropped-sfmSquare.pngLNS is currently back in the headlines. It might therefore be a good time to try to set out a timeline describing correspondence we had with the representatives of the authorities over discrepancies and anomalies that appeared to have arisen. None of this is necessarily predicated upon the recent findings of the CoS in the Big Tax Case, but stands on its own.

Back in February 2014 The Scottish Football Monitor wrote to Harper MacLeod, the law firm that the SPL had engaged to gather evidence for the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Commission investigating the full and proper registration of players paid by Rangers Football Club under Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements.

The initial set-up of the LNS Commission on 5th March 2012 by the SPL (View File) charged LNS with a look at EBTs from 1st July 1998 (when the SPL came into being).

In practice though, the Commission only looked at EBTs from 23 November 2000 onwards.

This change of date was based on the earliest side letter supplied by Duff and Phelps, although Harper MacLeod had requested ALL documentation from 1998 to March 2012 relating to ALL EBTs.

This prompted a series of letters to Harper MacLeod from The Scottish Football Monitor, although Harper MacLeod’s replies failed to address the issues raised.

The passage of time blurs memories but this archive is designed to remind readers of those blogs and correspondence, and the key points contained in them.

It also highlights the apparent inability or unwillingness on the part of the SPL and SFA to engage with us in any meaningful way.

NB: The SFA were informed of our correspondence by Harper MacLeod in October 2014.

It is extremely difficult to be concise in this situation. There are various strands of argument and details seemingly small, but vitally important – however the following is an attempt to make the material accessible and provides links to the relevant files in chronological order (links are in green).

 

  • Item 1: The first SFM letter of 19th February 2014 to Harper MacLeod
  • Item 2The Annexes containing the documents apparently not supplied to Harper Macleod in the spring of 2012 along with other pertinent information about the testimony given to LNS during the Commission.
  • Item 3The SFM response of 29 March 2014 to Harper MacLeod’s reply to the first letter.
  • Item 3.1: An SFM analysis of Harper MacLeod’s initial reply attached to response at 3.
  • Item 4: An SFM blog of 5th September pointing out how the documents not supplied had a direct impact on the advice given to the SPL Board to accept The Decision of The LNS Commission.
  • Item 5: The last letter of 4th October 2014 to Harper MacLeod answering points raised by them (see next) and thanking them for passing our correspondence to the SFA Compliance Officer who has so far deigned not to reply.
  • Item 5.1Harper MacLeod’s actual response to SFM 5th September letter.
  • Item 6: An SFM Blog (Inc. a transcript of an interview between Alex Thomson and Stewart Regan).
  • Item 6.1: Truncated version of above blog.
  • Item 7: A clearer extract of key document from Item 2 Annexes

 

Having no locus to demand answers from the SPL or the SFA, all we can do is provide information – information that we believe presents a prima facie case that LNS was deeply flawed even before the latest developments in the Tax Case came to light. The challenge for us is this: what can we do about it?

It is clear from the meagre response we have received that the authorities are unwilling to engage with us, so it is fair to assume that further correspondence will be met with the same lack of response.

Are we merely a bunch of obsessed nut-jobs with our own take on the Flat Earth conspiracy? If that is the case, surely a few words of explanation to dispel our doubts would have had traction with the rest of the football public. Indeed the lack of any reply undoubtedly serves as confirmation of our belief that something may be seriously wrong.

The questions have been posed. The SFA appears to think that not answering them is a wise course of action. Given that anecdotal evidence presents a compelling case that the general football public are widely in agreement with us, are there any journalists out there who will take the time to look at what we have observed and what we seek clarification on?

There are undoubtedly inferences to be drawn from the evidence we have, and from the silence of the authorities.

The statement by Celtic on Friday 13th November is certainly a start in the process we wish to begin, but it only mentions the elephant in the room. It gives no clue about how it could be transported to another place.

In the first instance we at SFM seek only explanations, and despite the inferences mentioned earlier, we are still eager to be satisfied that rules were followed and justice done.

Is there really  nobody in the MSM who has the courage to seek the answers we seek? I suspect not. What we do in the absence of that courage is important. We are at a crossroads. Either we give up on the game altogether and spend our Saturdays and Sundays doing other things – or we find a way to get these questions out of blog pages and into the mainstream.

We need an alliance of fans of all clubs to do that, and we will be looking to build that alliance. I would urge fans of all clubs to give this material to fan sites of their own clubs.

These are not just words. There can be no movement on this issue unless our reach is extended. SFM alone does not have the clout required to bring the clubs to the table or the MSM to fair and balanced reporting. We need that alliance of fans desperately. We don’t seek leadership of that alliance – but we are happy to provide it if required.

This is not a campaign to have Rangers punished. I understand that Rangers fans (since their club is in the middle of this mess) are reluctant to see us as anything other than a bunch of Rangers haters.

That is unequivocally not the case from the perspective of the moderators of this blog. SFM is committed to justice, and to the integrity of the sport we all love.

Justice is ON THE SIDE of Rangers and their fans – it does not conspire against them. A growing number of Rangers fans are coming round to our way of thinking and our tone must reflect that. This is not a Celtic or  Hearts or Aberdeen or anybody else v Rangers issue. This is a fans v corrupt authorities issue.

We all deserve answers, and hopefully our alliance will compel each individual club to act in the interests of the fans .

 

 

 

 

 

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

2,349 Comments so far

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:54 pm - Nov 25, 2015


Just a late night thought.  Whilst the shareholders can vote in the share dilution scam (in the same way a turkey would offer a match when the pilot light blew out), then give Ashley’s lawyers 21 days to obtain an interdict to block it, does that not then mean it’s Ashley last holding the parcel when the fuse runs out?

View Comment

Avatar

high beeswaxPosted on11:57 pm - Nov 25, 2015


if say 60k non trfc fans lobbed in a tenner each to crowd fund a jud rev of lns …. would the sfa send along a man or woman to say who the hell are they, we dont have to answer to 60k fans !……..

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:37 am - Nov 26, 2015


Flocculent Apoidea 25th November 2015 at 11:44 pm
‘…I also liked the phrase “more or less immediately”.  ..’
____
so do I!
I  used it quite unconsciously,but I now see how Joycean it is, like ‘preparatory to doing anything else’, in ‘Ulysses’! I’ve a wee thing about that .

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:58 am - Nov 26, 2015


Any sightings of,  or statements from , our esteemed leader , Alan McRae , allegedly President of the SFA ? What will it take to rouse him from his slumbers  ?  A bit of leadership wouldn’t go amiss in these troubled times , somebody to take ownership of the situation. Even just to say that big boys did it then ran away . Except they didnae .   Mibbes that’s what’s  happening – he’s waiting for somebody else to sweep the floor clean before he comes out smiling and dancing and showing his moves .  Or mibbes not .

View Comment

Cygnus X2

Cygnus X2Posted on2:23 am - Nov 26, 2015


In sections 9 and 12 of James Forrest’s review of the events surrounding Rangers he describes how the October/November period in 2011 was crucial in two respects.

Firstly, unexpected events (hello Charles, hello Mike) put pressure on cash that was dwindling or non-existent within the club.

Secondly, that is the period by which it seems absolutely undeniable that the football authorities in Scotland were aware that Rangers were going to experience an insolvency event.

At the moment is seems like the financial news for RIFC is entirely of the unexpected/bad variety, which most people on this site and others already know.

Surely, DCK’s ‘casual courtesy visit’ yesterday must be the point at which the SPFL/SFA lose any hope of plausible deniability if they do not take action in respect of Rangers’ situation.

Deja vu all over again for Regan and Doncaster.

Will the current incarnation of Rangers make it to Valentine’s Day this time?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:10 am - Nov 26, 2015


I see the blogger John James is alleging the media know where King borrowed the money to buy his Rangers shares. He describes it as an ‘open secret’ with the media hiding behind the sub-judice cover. I have no idea of whether this is true of course, but I can observe that a web so tangled is being weaved that some may never escape. If only the SFA had applied the rules in 2012 like they had always done previously when a club is liquidated. 

‘Hell mend them’ as my Granny used to say!

]

View Comment

Methilhill Stroller

Methilhill StrollerPosted on8:12 am - Nov 26, 2015


We all know something is up (beyond “x” court cases, no credit line from a bank etc etc) because this soap opera continues to throw curve balls every day of the week, but the SMSM hardly do themselves, or Sevco fans, any favours by keeping quiet about the issues that would, were it any other club, be plastered over front, middle and back pages of every rag and be “informing’ (accuracy not being a strong point it seems) the public of what is going on.

James Forrest in his latest blog writes well about Walter Smith and him wanting more money when Lloyds were trying to bring a halt to the original madness and then setting the fans against them which resulted in protests and fans withdrawing their accounts from Lloyds. As James says, “Think about the idiocy, sheer lunacy, that’s required to actually spit in the faces of the people who are keeping your lights on”.

Fast forward to the second “madness” and we see the same thing happening with protests against MA who, again, like Lloyds, appears the only person [Sarver or AN Other notwithstanding] able to manage the club/company properly and keep the lights on!!

I can see where Ryan and John James are coming from and wish them well in these continuing difficult times. JJ may not get all the facts or figures 100% right but his focus is definitely in the right direction if only more would pay attention and see where this is probably going. It will be interesting when the walls again come crumbling[dome] down who is going to receive the backlash – SFA/SPFL, SMSM, SDM, WS, the gardener, Green, Whyte, King, Murray or perm any number from any of those involved.

At least, with twitter and blogs nobody can say the information was not out there in the public domain. If you don’t want to read, listen, or believe then go your own way but when it all goes down the pan don’t blame anyone except yourself.

I say that pointed in one direction but, as members of the [ahem] authorities, perhaps there are 41 clubs that also need to look in the mirror and ask, given what is also in the public domain for them to see every day, “could we or should we have done more, and, how about now trying to bring all the [41] clubs together and seeing what can still be done to rid the sport of this almighty embarrassment.”

Scottish Football needs a strong, and more consistent, Arbroath and East Fife. 

View Comment

Avatar

Madbhoy24941Posted on8:21 am - Nov 26, 2015


A day at Hampden……Mr Regan is enjoying a cup of tea and a digestive with his good colleague Mr Doncaster before the real work of the day. They are awoken by the intercom buzzing……
RECEPTIONIST: “Excuse me Mr Regan; there are 2 men at the reception who would like to speak to you”
MR REGAN: “Are they connected with Scottish Football?”
RECEPTIONIST: “Well the first is a Mr. Ashley; he is a leader in his field of business, a man of great wealth and power and one that currently controls a healthy 9% share of the company that owns Rangers. Although ruthless in business and not the most generous to his lower paid employees, he works within the legal framework and is very successful and respected for his achievements. He is based in The UK and attends many football games.”
MR DONCASTER: ”Who’s the other guy?”
RECEPTIONIST: “Well the other is a Mr. King, he controlled shares in the former club, was a director when the company folded and was partly responsible by voting against proposals that could have saved the club, encouraged Rangers fans to stop supporting the new club, was responsible for the business being de-listed, drove down the share price and subsequently borrowed some money to buy shares and give the impression that he has control of a small amount of shares in the company that owns the new club. Oh, and he is a convicted criminal based on multiple instances of tax evasion. He is based in South Africa and when he ventures to this island, you are more likely to find him in the directors box at Chelsea than at Ibrox.”
MR REGAN: “Is Ashley a Rangers supporter?”
RECEPTIONIST: “Well Mr. Ashley is definitely not, he is a Londoner with a keen interest in Newcastle and football in general but has no previous links to Scotland or Rangers, he doesn’t claim otherwise. Mr. King, as you know, has a family background connected to Rangers and is known to kiss the odd badge when required; his children however, are Liverpool fans. He is on record (nothing official, just the view of the SMSM) as being a RRM.
Mr. Regan and Mr. Doncaster look at each other…..
MR REGAN: “Tell Ashley that we have absolutely nothing to discuss with anyone who only has a 9% interest in one of our member clubs, even if he does control all intellectual rights, has security over some properties and is owed a lot of money that he loaned to Rangers to keep the lights on. If he asks any questions then tell him we don’t need to answer to anyone.”
MR DONCASTER: “Call Sandy and Campbell and tell them to get up here now and carry Mr. King into the office, hold all calls from any club other than Rangers and cancel all meetings today with anyone who isn’t wearing Blue Tinted Specs. Hey Stu, I need to borrow your lip gloss, I left mine in my office and you know Davie’s ass is somewhat sensitive”

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:50 am - Nov 26, 2015


There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

Sometimes I read that Rangers fans were resistant even ignorant to the truth of things prior to 2012, during 2012 and post 2012.  Being honest it usually appears in a ‘crowing’ way in Celtic sites, ‘We told you but you didn’t listen!’  I don’t buy into it.  The bears were not blinded and they were well informed.  They were not informed by the normal media but anyone with access to a computer could read about it.

RTC was set up to expose and discuss the Wee Tax Case & The Big Tax Case, but much more than that was discussed.  Likewise ‘Mad Phil’ as he is affectionately known,  and the late Paul McConville.  All the information (and speculation to be fair) was out there. 

The hideous abuse against these three sites by some bears is testimony to the fact that awareness was not an issue.  I go back to this:
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

History is repeating itself.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on9:08 am - Nov 26, 2015


jimbo 26th November 2015 at 8:50 am #
, and the late Paul McConville

A poignant reminder that today is the 2nd anniversary of his passing.  RIP We miss your dissection of the legal issues.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:19 am - Nov 26, 2015


paddy malarkey 26th November 2015 at 1:58 am
‘..Any sightings of, or statements from , our esteemed leader , Alan McRae , allegedly President of the SFA ‘
_______
Anyone who does not acknowledge communications sent to him is suspect, in my book. Mr McCrae has not even acknowledged let alone replied to my letter to him of one month ago.
I therefore have to brand him as something less than a gentleman, who would not be at all welcome in my social environment as exhibiting a serious character deficiency.
To what depths might not such a man descend? Or, God save the mark, has he descended so far already that failure to reply to correspondence is the least of his faults?

 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:41 am - Nov 26, 2015


To be fair to Alan, having had his initial rant at meeting 1 on his first day, “Do you seriously expect me to believe that this litany of problems you’ve laid out are all of our own making” he is still getting over the fact that yes they did expect him to believe it and yes the problems were all of their own making.  They then went on to describe how determined they were to call the new (oops) club’s bluff when they came crying again, before laying out how, in the unlikely event that that happened, the DR says everything is fine after all, that they would of course be bending over once more.

Not the best start for the lad, it has to be said. I’d be pretty quiet too in all honesty.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:48 am - Nov 26, 2015


John Clark 26th November 2015 at 9:19 am #paddy malarkey 26th November 2015 at 1:58 am‘..Any sightings of, or statements from , our esteemed leader , Alan McRae , allegedly President of the SFA ‘_______Anyone who does not acknowledge communications sent to him is suspect, in my book. Mr McCrae has not even acknowledged let alone replied to my letter to him of one month ago.I therefore have to brand him as something less than a gentleman, who would not be at all welcome in my social environment as exhibiting a serious character deficiency.To what depths might not such a man descend? Or, God save the mark, has he descended so far already that failure to reply to correspondence is the least of his faults?
_______________

Now, now John, we all know he’s a very busy man with all those public engagements and statements he makes to keep us all so well informed about what’s happening in the Hampden offices we all help to pay for.

Either that or he’s extremely busy ensuring he distances himself from all that’s gone on before he took office, and avoiding making any documented referrence giving his own opinion on what has happened, is happening, or might happen with regards to Scotland’s newest club! Apparently he hasn’t even had time to meet the chairman of the second largest (claims to be the largest and most successful) club in the country! Well maybe his work has been cut out ensuring that that meeting doesn’t take place! Plausable deniability and all that…

It’s not easy looking after yourself in such a transparently opaque environment as the SFA, especially with all those tigerish journalists, desperate for the next big scoop…

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on9:48 am - Nov 26, 2015


John Clark,
What do you expect? After all, what is your standing?
You don’t even have 9% of the shares in an institution , and you’re probably not a billionaire.
You are only one of the wee people, just a football fan like the rest of us. Plebs in their eyes!

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on10:47 am - Nov 26, 2015


I have a slight confession to make.  As the protestations of TRFC and, to a lesser extent, the SFA have become increasingly shrill I often read the various statements or interviews and imagine them in the voice of Barbara Leigh-Hunt’s portrayal of Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

“I have not been used to submit to any person’s whims.  I have not been in the habit of brooking disappointment”

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on11:10 am - Nov 26, 2015


I see that JJ is saying that King was “summoned” to the SPFL yesterday and read the riot act by Doncaster.  Wilson supposedly tipped off by Doncaster.

King left Hampden with a flea in his ear and an invoice for £400,000

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on11:11 am - Nov 26, 2015


Maybe our esteemed President of Scottish Football has taken time out at this time of year to play a part in the Pantomime season,haud oan a minute.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on11:13 am - Nov 26, 2015


Oh no he hasn’t!

View Comment

Gee69

Gee69Posted on11:32 am - Nov 26, 2015


Maybe the SFA should learn that their much utilised discretion, is by definition, the root of most of the uncertainty that they wish to clear up.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:41 am - Nov 26, 2015


The one thing that puzzles me is why is there such a belief in King.

Given all we know about the him, he is as much a Real Rangers Man as Ashley is a paid up member of the Toon Army or Green was when he caught Rangersitis.

I can only come to the conclusion that the massed ranks down Ibrox way are still blinded by the possibility of him being the next sugar daddy coming over the hill, otherwise there would be a call for a measured and dignified rebuilding process under the guidance of someone like Douglas Park.

King was always going to be bad news and the last eight months have shown he has made little or no major progress in terms of moving the club forward in terms of corporate governance.

Once again,  if there is a large body of the sensible Bears out there they appear to be in hiding or simply shouted down/afraid to put their heads above the parapet.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:22 pm - Nov 26, 2015


https://t.co/hiFUxvTZuH

Looks like Green’s got to pay for his own defence, anyone interested in buying a French chateux, with stables?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:29 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Green losing his claim might well preserve King’s hero status at tomorrow’s AGM. Can’t say I’d be sorry, I’d hate to see him go and make way for someone of less Rangersness 21

View Comment

yakutsuki

yakutsukiPosted on12:31 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Re Green losing… should have got Jim White to represent him maybe?

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on12:49 pm - Nov 26, 2015


If Mr Green is short of cash, he could consider turning State’s evidence, and claim expenses from the prosecution !

Save himself some dough, and exact a wee bit of revenge.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:52 pm - Nov 26, 2015


I suppose that result will mean the board can release the money they’ve sensibly set aside for Green’s legal fees and spend it in the January transfer window. Or maybe use it to pay the outstanding LNS fine, or put it towards repaying MA. What’s that you tell me? They hadn’t made any such provision!

But surely it means Green will get jail-time but TRFC will hold onto the assets. Surely MA will realise there’s no beating this world record holding club (world record in dodging bullets) and so admit the £5m is truly holistic, and, at the same time, stop all legal actions. BDO are now bound to appeal the EBT case, and win it. And the SFA will, at last, admit they’ve been too tough on the Ibrox outfit and issue a levy on all 41 other clubs to ensure that TRFC get the sporting advantage their position within Scottish society entitles them to.

Or could it just be that there’s still at least one bullet out there with TRFC stamped on it’s casing?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:54 pm - Nov 26, 2015


oddjob 26th November 2015 at 9:48 am
‘…You don’t even have 9% of the shares in an institution ,..’
_______
Ha, ha! Oh yes I have: Mrs C tells (!) me I have a 50% share in the institution of marriage.
But I have to tell her that  I am not a billionaire!03

View Comment

Avatar

rabtdogPosted on12:56 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Playing a league game in a neutral venue overseas contravenes the spirit of the competition by removing a home game for a club (yes, ‘the split’, i know)… It would make more sense to play a one-off like the league cup final abroad (Miami or LA in November?) but that will never happen for various reasons – many of them good. 

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on1:01 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Allyjambo 26th November 2015 at 12:22 pm #https://t.co/hiFUxvTZuH
Looks like Green’s got to pay for his own defence, anyone interested in buying a French chateux, with stables?
    ——————————————————————————————–
   Story was he flipped that into his wife’s name after getting the keys. It might not be a quick sale on the horizon, but a rather nasty “domestic” situation. ….Especially if she has big hauns tae !21

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on1:04 pm - Nov 26, 2015


John Clark @ 1254pm
Touche` !
We’re both in the same boat!

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on1:04 pm - Nov 26, 2015


So Green loses his case to have Rangers* pay his legal expenses.
Losing probably means he’ll be able only to engage lesser counsel to defend him in the upcoming case.
While truth is truth -and no smartypants lawyer should be able to avoid the truth/justice –  engaging lesser counsel probably means he is more likely to lose the upcoming case than if he could afford top quality counsel.
Losing the upcoming case probably means the ownership of the Rangers* assets becomes even more ‘uncertain’ and problematic.
Losing the upcoming case probably means  the whole question of new club/old club and who owns the new club comes under scrutiny again.
All in all, while the Rangers* fans will undoubtedly be crowing about a win for Rangers*, should they actually have been hoping for a CG win today?
wottpi 26th November 2015 at 11:41 am
And when it all falls down, all those good and sensible Rangers* people will once again play the victim card of ‘What could I/we have done? It’s the SFA’s fault! Hang Dave King’ etc etc.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:09 pm - Nov 26, 2015


It’s interesting that the Daily Record chose to publish the Ashley statement in full. I am sure the Man Child got a level 5 roasting for that one 01
Early days, but I think we are seeing the foundations being laid for a campaign to oust King. It is all too easy to see how this could be sold to the masses.
“King saved Ranger’s from the looters, and for that Ranger’s fans owe him much. He is also a very divisive figure, and, coupled with his ongoing legal issues, for the good of Rangers and Scottish Football  it’s time for Mr King to step down”
Jings, I may just have written Spiers’ next piece 01

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on1:19 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Can he appeal?
Simply the press release says claim not within ambit of insurance.
On what grounds we will never know as its considered potentially in contempt to publish to the public.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:22 pm - Nov 26, 2015


ianagain

I’m putting this one down as victory for common sense, not to mention a bolstering of the few remaining shreds of decency in UK PLC

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:23 pm - Nov 26, 2015


oddjob 26th November 2015 at 12:49 pm #If Mr Green is short of cash, he could consider turning State’s evidence, and claim expenses from the prosecution !
Save himself some dough, and exact a wee bit of revenge
_______________

Could be that he now considers it worth his while to admit his own guilt and to ensure the whole truth comes out, with every stinking detail revealed. Get a lighter sentence and, like Craigy boy, he might well end up with enough time on his hands to write that book…

I doubt any residual Rangersitis remains after being cast adrift by the club, and so, a spiv like Charlie will no doubt be inclined to sink everyone and everything, including his former club, to mitigate his actions.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:30 pm - Nov 26, 2015


ianagain 26th November 2015 at 1:19 pm
‘..Simply the press release says claim not within ambit of insurance.’
______
So it was a claim under an insurance policy ( the premiums must have been paid up to date), rather than a claim directly on RIFC under the Articles of Association?
Could he now make such a direct claim, I wonder? Or was his claim under both heads, with RIFC being held not liable first, before consideration of their insurance companies policy?
Or is that just nonsense?20

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on1:35 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Allyjambo 26th November 2015 at 12:22 pm
https://t.co/hiFUxvTZuH
Looks like Green’s got to pay for his own defence, anyone interested in buying a French chateux, with stables?

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1521/Charles-Alexander-Green-v-Rangers-International-Football-Club-plc

I’m wondering whether this is going to spun as another victory for the same club argument.  After-all the RIFC defence appeared to be entirely based on the club being some floating entity that flits between owners.  The judgment however clearly states that Lord Doherty’s decision is based on him not regarding criminal proceeding being covered by clause 8.3’s judicial proceedings.  So his decision is solely on the contents of the contract.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on1:35 pm - Nov 26, 2015


JC sorry it was on clause 8.3 of without. Prejudice agreement, not insurance!

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on1:41 pm - Nov 26, 2015


IanAgain/JC  see my link to the summary of the judgement.  No mention of insurance just the contractual compromise agreement.  The full opinion has been sent to RIFC and Mr Charles but either would be in contempt of court if they published anything in it before the end of Mr Charles’ trial (and possible appeals).

Edit beat me to it IanAgain

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:54 pm - Nov 26, 2015


It’s a pity that Lord Doherty’s full judgement won’t be released until after the criminal case. I was hoping to see some comment about the OC/NC argument that was brought up by Green’s lawyer.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on1:54 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Allyjambo 26th November 2015 at 1:23 pm 
 
    “Could be that he now considers it worth his while to admit his own guilt and to ensure the whole truth comes out, with every stinking detail revealed.” 
      ————————————————————————————
    Not only that Ally. His fellow accused will also be aware of that. There may be a race on now to see who can turn Q.E. first, and “baggsy” the lighter load.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:56 pm - Nov 26, 2015


tykebhoy, ianagain…
Many thanks. I was puzzled, because I couldn’t see how it could have met the companies act requirements to be considered as an insurance claim.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on2:06 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Allyjambo 26th November 2015 at 12:29 pm #Green losing his claim might well preserve King’s hero status at tomorrow’s AGM. Can’t say I’d be sorry, I’d hate to see him go and make way for someone of less Rangersness 

The only King that should be referenced in relation to this victory is Pyrrhus of of Epirus. 
03

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:08 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Can’t help but feel a wee bit sorry for jj, he has been confidently predicting for ages that Green would win this hands down.  It really shouldn’t surprise anyone too much.  What often appears to us lay people as an open and shut case is not seen that way by legal minds.  EBTs being a good example, 3 attempts before justice was done (so far).

Ironically the Celtic supporting Lord Doherty was involved twice in taking the Ibrox side.   Still it’s reassuring to see his impartiality.

I’ll need to go and check my lottery ticket from last night.  If I have won the big prize TSFM’s money worries are over and I’m paying for the next night out.  Wish me well!  03122119

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on2:09 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Allyjambo 26th November 2015 at 1:23 pm #oddjob 26th November 2015 at 12:49 pm #If Mr Green is short of cash, he could consider turning State’s evidence, and claim expenses from the prosecution !Save himself some dough, and exact a wee bit of revenge_______________
Could be that he now considers it worth his while to admit his own guilt and to ensure the whole truth comes out, with every stinking detail revealed. Get a lighter sentence and, like Craigy boy, he might well end up with enough time on his hands to write that book…
I doubt any residual Rangersitis remains after being cast adrift by the club, and so, a spiv like Charlie will no doubt be inclined to sink everyone and everything, including his former club, to mitigate his actions.

Corrupt official 26th November 2015 at 1:54 pm #Allyjambo 26th November 2015 at 1:23 pm     “Could be that he now considers it worth his while to admit his own guilt and to ensure the whole truth comes out, with every stinking detail revealed.”       ————————————————————————————    Not only that Ally. His fellow accused will also be aware of that. There may be a race on now to see who can turn Q.E. first, and “baggsy” the lighter load.

My money has always been on Craig Whyte being the first cab off that rank.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:14 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Scapa @ 1.09

Perfect, but you need to write it in the first person, since it will be presented as Kings own decision for the good of the club, preservation of 140 years ya de f….g ya!

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on2:26 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Now would be a good time to announce that “Leave to appeal” has been sought. 
   Will we see a statement o’clock before the big day of the gazebo gathering.?

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on2:33 pm - Nov 26, 2015


There’s no gazebo this year, it’s at the armadillo.

View Comment

Avatar

alzipratuPosted on2:45 pm - Nov 26, 2015


zerotolerance1903 26th November 2015 at 2:09 pm #Allyjambo 26th November 2015 at 1:23 pm #oddjob 26th November 2015 at 12:49 pm
His fellow accused will also be aware of that. There may be a race on now to see who can turn Q.E. first, and “baggsy” the lighter load.
My money has always been on Craig Whyte being the first cab off that rank.
*******

An erstwhile ranger and cobbler got there first.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on2:57 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Alzipratu @ 2’45pm
That’s a show stopper!
Cobbler as in Northampton ?

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on3:09 pm - Nov 26, 2015


http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/28/news-international-andy-coulson-legal-fees
Charles Green could appeal, see above.
Extract from above,
 
“Andy Coulson has won his legal battle to force News International to continue paying his legal fees relating to criminal investigations into alleged illegal activity at the News of the World while he was editor.”
Three senior court of appeal judges ruled: “I am satisfied that clause 4.6 does cover Mr Coulson’s costs and expenses of defending the criminal allegations.”
Explaining why they overturned the earlier ruling, Laws said in the judgment:
 “I cannot accept the judge’s view that because Mr Coulson’s duties as editor comprised only lawful duties, it cannot have been identified that activities outside his lawful responsibilities would be covered by the indemnity … That would surely deprive the indemnity of all practical use. “It would not even cover the editor for the costs of defending proceedings arising out of the publications of alleged libels or publications said to constitute contempt of court, the very occupational hazards of editorship referred to by Mr Jeans [for News International] in argument.”
The judges said News International was liable for Coulson’s legal costs from the moment he was first arrested, on 8 July 2011, to the conclusion of the criminal trial scheduled for next year.
 
Unless clause 4.6 in Coulsons’ case is materially different to Chuckles.01

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on3:23 pm - Nov 26, 2015


With the De Broer  brother popping his head above the parapet today and Sky suggesting the lure of an ebt might have drawn Ronnie to Glasgow I had another look at Item 7 on the main blog to see what Ronald signed up for.

It was 1m  guilders paid every six months for 4 years under the DOS ebt scheme. The thing is after 4 payments taking him into 2002 he switched to the other ebt loan scheme that is the subject of the big tax case.

The thing is why the switch? Did RFC have an inkling the DOS scheme was dodgy or that the new scheme was a more defensible one?

Now that is the kind of question I would like to see asked in any investigation.

“Tell me Sir David what advice were you given to move from one scheme to another?”

“How was Mr De Boer persuaded it was in his interests to switch?”

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on3:28 pm - Nov 26, 2015


zerotolerance1903 “There’s no gazebo this year, it’s at the armadillo”  criticism will just bounce off… 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:30 pm - Nov 26, 2015


woodstein 26th November 2015 at 3:09 pm #
————————————————-
Here is Green’s compromise agreement re legal fees

“The Company [Rangers] will pay any reasonable professional (including, without limitation, legal and accounting) costs and expenses properly incurred by the Employee [Green] after the date of this Agreement which arise from having to defend, or appear in, any administrative, regulatory, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings by a third party as a result of his having been Chief Executive of The Rangers Football Club or the Company.”

…and here is Coulson’s compromise agreement re legal fees

“to the extent that it is lawfully able to do so, [News Group] will pay any reasonable professional (including, without limitation, legal and accounting) costs and expenses properly incurred by [Mr Coulson] after the Termination Date which arise from his having to defend, or appear in, any administrative, regulatory, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings as a result of his having been Editor of the News of the World.”

I know it’s a different jurisdiction, but I would have thought that Green may have a chance on appeal.  The two clauses were written by the same lawyer after all.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on3:57 pm - Nov 26, 2015


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34921891

Who’s the the guy with King?

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on4:11 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Anyone who knows of someone who has old free-standing office space dividers they might be ready to bin – can you let me know.

We badly need them to treat the room we are in (podcasts sound awful with too much room noise). Unfortunately we need three – and they cost a couple of hundred quid each.

Don’t care about how they look, we will fix them and put them to good use.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on4:21 pm - Nov 26, 2015


easyJambo 26th November 2015 at 3:30 pm #                 
highfibre 26th November 2015 at 4:00 pm #

Thanks04

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on4:33 pm - Nov 26, 2015


@highfibre.  As a layman that’s how I understood it.  The question for me is that in his actions that led to acquiring the assets currently owned by RIFC/TRFC how is he not acting in his capacity as Chief Exec of t’rangers?
Ripe for appeal IMHO. 

View Comment

Avatar

West Ham FanPosted on4:40 pm - Nov 26, 2015


not sure if this is OT but as Copenhagen FC was as I understand one Club who lost out on Champions League GRoup Stage money as a Result of Rangers FC (il) use of EBT payments to players does Danish Pastry know the Attitude of there Fans or Club to the whole Rangers Mess. It would only need 1 European Club to complain to EUFA and the whole thing is out of the Hands of the SFA and SPFL ? 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:04 pm - Nov 26, 2015


zerotolerance1903 26th November 2015 at 3:57 pm

It is Stewart Robertson the current Rangers MD (and former Motherwell director) who joined in June this year.

Reference made elsewhere on the blogisphere that he is having a stressful time but he looks fit and healthy to me in the short clip.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on5:18 pm - Nov 26, 2015


http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1521/Charles-Alexander-Green-v-Rangers-International-Football-Club-plc
“However, Lord Doherty decided that clause 8.3 does not oblige the defender to pay the costs of the pursuer defending the criminal proceedings which have been brought against him. He concluded that on a proper construction of the clause those criminal proceedings do not fall within its ambit.”
 
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/28/news-international-andy-coulson-legal-fees
Three senior court of appeal judges ruled: “I am satisfied that clause 4.6 does cover Mr Coulson’s costs and expenses of defending the criminal allegations.” Explaining why they overturned the earlier ruling, Laws said in the judgment: “I cannot accept the judge’s view that because Mr Coulson’s duties as editor comprised only lawful duties, it cannot have been identified that activities outside his lawful responsibilities would be covered by the indemnity … That would surely deprive the indemnity of all practical use. “It would not even cover the editor for the costs of defending proceedings arising out of the publications of alleged libels or publications said to constitute contempt of court, the very occupational hazards of editorship referred to by Mr Jeans [for News International] in argument.”
———————————————————————————–
 
Firstly the compromise agreements look almost identical, and they both refer to the  status of the individuals concerned.
In the Coulson case the appeal overturned the premise that only lawful activites would be indemnified.

In Chuckles case Lord Doherty ;concluded that on a proper construction of the clause those criminal proceedings do not fall within its ambit”  
On appeal in the Coulson case Laws in effect said that would “deprive the indemnity of all practical use”

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no legal training but I see an appeal on the horizon  along the same lines as Coulson.
As to jurisdiction dinnae ken.24

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:28 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Re Green and legal fees.

The parties involved will no doubt be aware of the full account of Lord Doherty’s opinion. 
Therefore an appeal may be forthcoming but as discussed before the timeline of the alleged offenses appear to start before Sevco/TRFCLtd/RIFCPlc cam into being and Green becoming an officer/director of those ventures. This differs greatly from Coulson who was in position at the time of his alleged offenses. I’d drop on the side of that being the matter closed.
If I were in the current T’Rangers boards shoes (and their insurer) I would sure as hell be trying to avoid paying Green’s fees, regardless of the potential outcomes of the trial. 

Its about the first time they have picked the right fight. 02

View Comment

Avatar

West Ham FanPosted on6:36 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Blimey 2 TD’s on my last Comment.. Dave King and Paul Murray must be really worried 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on6:41 pm - Nov 26, 2015


From what I’m getting in the posts on here this decision seems to hang on two points I think.  When green was merely a ‘bidder’ for the assets but exactly when some of the alleged irregularities happened with third parties then the current Rangers would not be liable for his legal costs, in my layman opinion.  Once he had bought the assets there was I think a limbo period when he was the owner of the assets but not quite a ‘director’ nor ‘CEO’ of Sevco as it was then known, was he an ‘official’ of the newco at that point? ; Would that be right?  A right old grey area.

View Comment

Avatar

gerrybhoy67Posted on7:14 pm - Nov 26, 2015


jimbo 26th November 2015 at 6:41 pm #
So in effect it was before the club currently playing in the Championship was born – maybe I’m completely wrong but has the Learned Law Lord confirmed through the court that this is indeed a completely different club and the gap between death and re-incarnation is the deal breaker?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:32 pm - Nov 26, 2015


gerrybhoy,  this seems to be a part of it – the oldco/newco debate.  I think it was brought up in court in front of Lord Doherty earlier this month but every thing is silence now until the criminal case against Green & Co. is dealt with.  Might open up another can of worms.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:37 pm - Nov 26, 2015


jimbo 26th November 2015 at 6:41 pm #
‘… Once he had bought the assets there was I think a limbo period when he was the owner of the assets but not quite a ‘director’ nor ‘CEO’ of Sevco as it was then known, was he an ‘official’ of the newco at that point? ..’
_______
I think Green  completed the purchase of the assets on 14th June 2012 and was appointed CEO of the new club TRFC on the same day, with Murray as Chairman, and Stockbridge and Ahmad also appointed.
So I would suggest that in everything that preceded that date CG was acting as a private individual and not acting as a Director!

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on7:54 pm - Nov 26, 2015


John Clark 26th November 2015 at 7:37 pm #
The RFC assets were bought by a Sevco (not getting into anything about which sevco), not by CG as a private individual, but my memory is now poor about when Sevco Scotland morphed into The Rangers. 
So I suppose as well as asking just who played Brechin, is it who bought the assets? On whose borrowed money? To enrich who? And just how much did the fitba beaks know about the nature and purpose of these sales and associated  fixes in advance rather than reacting “for the good of the game”

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:05 pm - Nov 26, 2015


This is when you appreciate the heavy hitter posters on here & elsewhere, past & present keeping a time line and archive of all that has happened.  Must rush got a game to watch.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on8:11 pm - Nov 26, 2015


JC/Jimbo/Gerrybhoy
Without seeing the full opinion (which we won’t for some time) the headline of the summary of the rejection of Green’s claim is that criminal proceedings is not considered to be included in the judicial proceedings mentioned in the contractual compromise agreement that Chuckles had with RIFC on his departure.  This is the only reason given for Lord Doherty’s decision. 

It is being confused a little with Andy Coulson’s appeal against a similar decision.  What is not in doubt was Andy Coulson’s actions were entirely while in the employ of Newscorp.  Most of Chuckles actions under legal examination preceded his involvement with or existence of Sevco Scotland and all (presumably) before his involvement with and existence of RIFC.  Sevco 5088 is a different matter but then he himself emasculated Sevco 5088.

Charles Green never had anything to do with the oldco/oldclub but it is the contractual agreements with the newco/newclub that Lord Doherty has ruled upon

View Comment

zerotolerance1903

zerotolerance1903Posted on8:12 pm - Nov 26, 2015


Sevco Scotland didn’t morph into Rangers, it just changed its name.  

It it may well be the case that Green was carrying out negotiations before becoming a director of Sevco – which was just an off the shelf company repurposed to carry out the transaction.  But if I was in his shoes I would be arguing that the activity was materially part of the acquisition to which newco Rangers were a party and he was a director. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:57 pm - Nov 26, 2015


zerotolerance1903 26th November 2015 at 8:12 pm
‘…It it may well be the case that Green was carrying out negotiations before becoming a director of Sevco..
__________
Even at the time it was difficult to work out what was happening!
CG was certainly dealing with the Administrators on behalf of a ‘consortium’ for some time, eventually getting exclusivity to purchase the assets if(when) the CVA failed and liquidation was inevitable.
But he was clearly, it seems, working not as anything other than a member of a consortium, for no company had been set up, until 29th May 2012..
Companies house records show that CG alone set up Sevco Scotland on that date.
They also show the appointments of Stockbridge, Ahmad, and Murray- as being on the 29th JUNE, 2012
So, anything that he or anyone else had done before that date could not have been done as a Director of Sevco Scotland, or of TRFC.
[Curiously, and I don’t understand this,Green was the ‘sole director’ when the name was changed to ‘The Rangers FC Ltd’on 31st July 2102.How could he have been ‘sole director’ if the other three had been appointed a month before?]
On this basis, I think I agree with Lord D.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:26 pm - Nov 26, 2015


John Clark 26th November 2015 at 8:57 pm # 
————————————————-
The dates you quote for the Sevco Scotland directors are those when the forms were submitted to Companies House.
The appointment dates were:
Green 29/05/2012
Stockbridge 14/06/2012
Ahmad 14/06/2012
Murray 14/06/2012

The attachment above is an extract from the 2013 TRFC Ltd Accounts and details the same appointment dates. 

The press release extracted from the Charge Sheet for the Fraudco trial gave the following dates for Green’s charges:

The sixth charge alleges that between February 1, 2012 and June 14, 2012, at various locations in Scotland, Mr Whyte, Mr Whitehouse, Mr Clark and Mr Green conspired together to acquire through the administration of Rangers “de facto control and ownership of the business and assets of the club”. 
The seventh charge alleges that between February 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012 at Ibrox and other locations throughout Europe, Mr Whyte, Mr Whitehouse, Mr Clark and Mr Green acted illegally. 
It is alleged that they did “agree to do something that you knew or suspected or ought reasonably to have known or suspected would enable or further the commission of serious organised crime”.
Prosecutors claim they conspired to acquire Rangers “for a sum considerably below the market value”. 
The eighth charge alleges that between March 1, 2012 and December 30, 2013, at Ibrox, Mr Green obtained “material benefit and a quantity of shares and money by fraud.” 

 

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on9:53 pm - Nov 26, 2015


easyJambo 26th November 2015 at 9:26 pm # Attachment
 John Clark 26th November 2015 at 8:57 pm # ————————————————-The dates you quote for the Sevco Scotland directors are those when the forms were submitted to Companies House. The appointment dates were: Green 29/05/2012 Stockbridge 14/06/2012 Ahmad 14/06/2012 Murray 14/06/2012
The attachment above is an extract from the 2013 TRFC Ltd Accounts and details the same appointment dates. 
The press release extracted from the Charge Sheet for the Fraudco trial gave the following dates for Green’s charges:
The sixth charge alleges that between February 1, 2012 and June 14, 2012, at various locations in Scotland, Mr Whyte, Mr Whitehouse, Mr Clark and Mr Green conspired together to acquire through the administration of Rangers “de facto control and ownership of the business and assets of the club”. The seventh charge alleges that between February 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012 at Ibrox and other locations throughout Europe, Mr Whyte, Mr Whitehouse, Mr Clark and Mr Green acted illegally.  It is alleged that they did “agree to do something that you knew or suspected or ought reasonably to have known or suspected would enable or further the commission of serious organised crime”.Prosecutors claim they conspired to acquire Rangers “for a sum considerably below the market value”. The eighth charge alleges that between March 1, 2012 and December 30, 2013, at Ibrox, Mr Green obtained “material benefit and a quantity of shares and money by fraud.” 
————————————————————————————-
Well researched EasyJ
That puts Charlies  &&&&s well and truly up on the slates.
Legal aid anyone?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:50 pm - Nov 26, 2015


052005
Celtic tonight
Chuckles at COS
Didn’t win the Lottery last night (sorry folks)

Don’t know how much more of this I can take. 21  (except the Celtic bit 07 )

Oh well, roll on the high court in London.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on10:59 pm - Nov 26, 2015


This is likely and consequentially very bad and good news for the current version of Rangers
The good news is it means the funds from CIC? will flow more easily to fund DCKs upcoming legal cases and pay for past representations and replacing his vino stock. Given the lemmings vote to parcel it up for him on Friday.
Players signed January. I doubt it. Sold more than likely.
The bad news is CG and CW are reduced to being defended by the Brysons of the legal profession and the whole kit and caboodle ends up reverting to BDO. End of any however remote visions of market input. 
Meanwhile MA circles the whole shambles like a shark and like sharks he smells blood. Sorry Ryan it all just doesn’t sound, look or feel comfortable.

View Comment

Comments are closed.