Since I have lost my voice this week to the Armageddon virus, we decided to do a mini, written version of TWM for your pleasure….
In Armageddon Lala Land (© S. Regan), it’s all falling apart in a major borefest.
The explosive first thirteen minutes of the match involving the two top teams in the country were just a dream from which we all sadly awoke – although in my experience one usually gets roused from a dream just as the good bit begins!
Meanwhile nobody in Airdrie, Alloa, Annan, Brechin, Cowdenbeath, Dundee, Forfar, Greenock, Kirkcaldy, Montrose, Peterhead, or East Kilbride noticed anything exciting about the playoffs – and to make matters worse, folk in Cowdenbeath & EK, Forfar & Peterhead, Brechin & Alloa and Dundee & Falkirk have more of this trouser-removal process to endure later this week.
The facts, despite the SFA, SPFL and MSM trying to undersell our game here in Scotland, tell a different story. The playoff system – after close finishes in all the leagues, top and bottom, is pure drama.
There will be tears and laughter in unequal measure of course. Already, Raith Rovers, the great love of our old friend the late Turnbull Hutton have joined Ayr United and Stenhousemuir in relegation. The same fate may yet befall two from Inverness, Motherwell and Hamilton in the top league. The Blue Brazil themselves, Cowdenbeath could face banishment from the SPFL altogether if they cannot beat the upwardly East Kilbride next week.
The truth is, that keeping expectations in a realistic check, the game in Scotland is in better shape than it has been for decades. The delusional, acquisitional David Murray-led charge to financial oblivion has ended. Clubs, well most of them anyway, are living within their means. Thankfully the banks, enablers of the financial doping of the last thirty years, are now playing the role of limiting the excesses of overspending that clubs previously enjoyed.
Doubts over the distribution of the available income streams aside, there is level playing field on which Scottish clubs play, and over the last few years, a host of clubs, including Inverness, Ross County, St Mirren, Kilmarnock and St Johnstone have achieved historic successes. Aberdeen have re-emerged as the second most consistent side in the country after several years of consistency that only Champions Celtic have bettered.
In fact the quality of attacking play – if not defending- on show at Pittodrie on Friday evening would have graced any top flight game in England. It is now to Celtic and Aberdeen as well as our other clubs in European competition, Rangers and St Johnstone, to demonstrate that Scottish football may well be the poor relations in the UK, but is no backwater hangout for hillbillies and banjo players
Celtic’s dominance of course is the elephant in the room. It’s a big cuddly green and white elephant of course if you are a Celtic fan, but phase two of post Armageddon Scotland will hopefully involve a meaningful challenge at the very top over the next few years.
Craig Whyte
Whisky Baron?
The Craig Whyte trial continued in Glasgow last week. The former Rangers chairman faces charges including one of ‘pretending’ to have funds to facilitate the ‘purchase’ of ‘Rangers’.
Things the court has heard from testimony up to now include;
- the claim that Ex-Rangers chief executive Martin Bain got a £360k bonus for the sale of the club,
- that Gary Withey, Craig Whyte’s lawyer through the acquisition of Rangers, thought that Whyte was a member of the Whyte & McKay Whisky company!
- that Ally McCoist had a contract with a substantial payoff clause if he was not chosen to succeed Walter Smith.
- Rangers already owed £6m to Ticketus at the time Whyte took over
- that David Murray had a deal with Lloyds: If he sold Rangers by a certain date, he would be able to regain ownership of MIM
Gary Withey, told the court that he thought Murray was desperate to get the deal over the line, that Murray’s team didn’t care where Whyte’s money had come from, and that in his opinion they knew that the deal was financed via Ticketus – this after the court had heard from other witnesses that Lloyd’s bank had threatened to withdraw Rangers’ credit and finance facilities if the board blocked the sale.
Significantly for matters outwith the confines of the case – and this has been incredibly under-reported by the main stream media – David Murray also told the court earlier that he had used EBT’s in order to get better players for Rangers than they could otherwise afford, re-igniting social media exchanges over the validity of William Nimmo-Smith’s report into Rangers use of EBT’s.
You may remember that Nimmo-Smith himself considered that Rangers had gained no sporting advantage by their use of the scheme – a conclusion diametrically at variance with Murray’s – the man who operated the scheme to achieve exactly that end.
Nimmo-Smith – Doubts?
If Murray is telling the truth, then it puts Nimmo-Smith’s conclusions in doubt. And even if you leave aside for the moment the amended and extremely creative terms of reference set by Neil Doncaster which effectively excluded the already known to be unlawful DoS EBTs from Nimmo-Smith’s team, the SPL has been shown up as a bit a joke.
Who knew?
Another sensational piece of info the court heard, which again has gone almost completely unreported, was that in an email from Mike McGill of Murray Group, dated 17 March 2011, he says “the (wee tax) case only recently went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently” – this long before a Euro licence was awarded to Rangers on the basis, according to Stewart Regan, that the bill had “not crystallised” when the licence was awarded.
It may be that that the laws of unintended consequences will prove to be more significant to football than the matter of Craig Whyte’s guilt or innocence.
All of the information on the case is what was said in court. None of it is to be taken as fact. That will be for the courts to decide. What is being reported is what witnesses have said in court. Also, there is a lot of hysteria, a lot of speculation going on in social media and the mainstream media over court proceedings.
Speculating on the innocence or guilt of a defendant, or the honesty of a witness is most definitely contempt of court territory. For obvious legal reasons, SFM wishes to stay on the right side of the law and avoid unnecessary problems with the courts.
But we also want to ensure that we are not party to contaminating people with speculation that may lead a defendant to be being mistakenly convicted or acquitted.
The purpose of a trial is establishing the facts of a case, not to merely validate so-called information or inferences that have been drawn before any legal process has begun. So we are asking everyone at SFM therefore to refrain from posting anything that implies guilt or innocence, truthfulness or untruthfulness, or anything which repeats unsubstantiated rumour.
We may think we know a lot, but it may well be the case as the trial progresses that we discover we knew less than we thought – so please keep that in mind when you post.
The news that it seems likely Clint Hill will not be offered a new contract at Rangers saddens me a little. Hill has been a consistent performer this year, playing with an energy, honesty and assuredness that was way in excess of many of his teammates and opponents alike. Hill is clearly not ready to retire, and I hope that he gets another year of football.
It will be interesting to see how many of the players who have been in the headlines this year will be leaving Scottish football. Hill looks to be gone, as does Emerson Hyndman. Will the likes of Moussa Dembele, Kieran Tierney, Scott Sinclair, Barrie McKay, Niall McGinn. A fair chance that some of them will. The challenge for our game is to keep a flow of that kind of talent ongoing. The more successful we are at that, the less resigned we will have to be about losing them.
As the season draws to a close, we still have promotion and relegation playoff battles to enjoy. There is the unresolved matter of ‘Invincible’ status for Celtic in their as yet unbeaten league campaign. We also have a proper showpiece finale to the season in two weeks as Aberdeen and Celtic go head to head in pursuit of the Scottish Cup.
In a few weeks, the transfer window will pique our interest as the off-field wars will be waged – with the added fun of the phantom journos in the MSM bringing us phantom stories of phantom Messis and Ronaldos headed for a hover-pitch near you – and the new season will immediately bring European drama to the door.
Who knows? Maybe the close season will see some proper football administrators brought in to replace the architects of Armageddon, tartan style. Sadly that sounds awfully like a Moonbeam.
EASYJAMBO
JUNE 4, 2017 at 15:14
Indeed, it will be very interesting to hear the rest of what Findlay says and what the Judge says when charging the Jury. One of her main jobs is to make what constitutes the offence as simple as possible. However as you say, at the end of the day it is the Jury who will decide.
I just think that going by what Findlay has said so far he is going to trash the SPA and say that it didn’t create any obligation on Whyte to do anything other than pay the pound. As such everything else was his decision an what he did was in the best interests of the club. In fact Craig Whyte if anything was the victim in all of this and the only person really trying to save the club.
Homunculus
June 4, 2017 at 15:30
————————————————–
“I just think that going by what Findlay has said so far he is going to trash the SPA and say that it didn’t create any obligation on Whyte to do anything other than pay the pound. * “
—————————————————-
Agree.
* http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/07_01_02_elements_of_a_contract/
* (consideration) See 3 SPA
AULDHEIDJUNE 4, 2017 at 13:42 Thanks for the reply. It makes some sense if at the time Ticketus thought eithera) Rangers are going to the wall under SDM and we will not be able to sell the stock of tickets we boughtorb) Rangers will not go to the wall but the necessary austerity will lead to a reduction in ST sales meaning it will take longer to sell our stock, so we cannot deal with SDM.However what made them so sure that Rangers under CW were not going to suffer the same fate under CW as under SDM above?Was the thinking at the time to do a pre pack under CW to dump debt and stay in the top flight and so carry on as before and the exit from the CL changed that thinking by making HMRC the largest creditor when unpaid VAT Paye and WTC liability (+btc potential liability?) was added to the creditors bill causing the CVA to fail?Was the deal Ticketus entered into at the time done on the premise of the pre pack Administration or even as fall back the Armageddon plan that Regan and Doncaster failed to sell to clubs when liquidation, caused by CL exit changed the landscape?I’ve read somewhere CW very unhappy at the CL exit. Very.
—————————–
Found this as it clicked into my mind when reading your post.
——————-
How does scottish administration differ from english?.. looks after the charge holder first and foremost Craig will call the shots.(from JD tweets)
However what made them so sure that Rangers under CW were not going to suffer the same fate under CW as under SDM above?Was the thinking at the time to do a pre pack under CW to dump debt and stay in the top flight and so carry on as before and the exit from the CL
just maybe how ticketus would rather do a 3 year deal with whyte than murray.
i may be way off course though
Companies borrow money from a range of sources, including their directors and shareholders, personal contacts, banks, venture capital companies, institutional investors and (PLCs only) through the Stock Exchange.
There are no particular statutory requirements except that charges to secure such borrowing must be registered at Companies House.
Something that caught my attention with CW, when ticketus stated they kept their agreement in secret from the fans did DM have this borrowing registered with Company House. Were Ticketus ever mentioned in company house books. Maybe someone of a financial understanding might know of this and if it appears anywhere.
IMO
As said previously…………….in a longer post
I fully expect Lady Stacey tomorrow to direct the Jury to acquit Whyte of all charges
GOOSYGOOSY
JUNE 4, 2017 at 21:31
==============================
I ask because I have absolutely no idea.
How often does a High Court Judge actually instruct a Jury what verdict to return.
GOOSYGOOSYJUNE 4, 2017 at 21:31==============================
IMOAs said previously…………….in a longer postI fully expect Lady Stacey tomorrow to direct the Jury to acquit Whyte of all charges
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 4, 2017 at 21:51
I ask because I have absolutely no idea.
How often does a High Court Judge actually instruct a Jury what verdict to return.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I have no idea either
But
If there is any justice in this world
No Judge would pass up the opportunity to prevent a Jury returning a guilty verdict when the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of the accused
GOOSYGOOSY
JUNE 4, 2017 at 22:07
=================================
Would she not have gone with “no case to answer” if she thought that.
The trial has thus far been a revelation, but now that it is almost over, I suspect that the pot-trial phase will be more interesting as the sub-judice information dam is burst.
It will be an interesting close season.
I expect to be in the High Court in Glasgow tomorrow to hear Lady Stacey’s summing up and directions to the jury.
I have to say that it matters not a jot to me whether the charges against the accused are ‘proven’ or whether he is acquitted .
I couldnae care less about a tuppenny tosser.
What we do have from the ‘trial’ is proof that the SFA have misspoken to us in the matter of the granting of a UEFA license to SDM’s Rangers.
They are the ones that most seriously should be arraigned for having inflicted more lasting damage to the whole of Scottish Football than SDM and CW inflicted on one particular club.
The saga was not principally about the cheating by SDM’s Rangers. Or even about the odious piranha fish who collectively, successively, took the fan base of the old , in Liquidation, Rangers for more rides than the whore of Auchenshuggle.
No.
For me, as I’ve said often enough, the cheating of any one club,bad and all as it may be, is AS NOTHING, compared with the cheating of our Football Governance.
They lied to us about the Rangers ‘entitlement ‘ to UEFA licence.
They still lie to us about TRFC, despite never having kicked a ball before its foundation by CG in 2012. being the same title-and-honours-winning club that lost its entitlement to be in Scottish Football and is still in being as a legal entity in Liquidation!
A dodgy SFA is a much more serious matter than some some club that cheats.
The evidence is there.
And it’s a lovely twist that it comes from those for whom they lied to us.
Homunculus June 4, 2017 at 15:30 ————————————————– “I just think that going by what Findlay has said so far he is going to trash the SPA and say that it didn’t create any obligation on Whyte to do anything other than pay the pound.
——————————————–
June 5 2017 James Doleman Twitter
Findlay asks the jury to look at their copies of the Share Purchase Agreement. Says a legal document like this should be unequivocal.
Notes SPA imposes an “intention” on Whyte to spend £5m per year on players for 5 years
Findlay takes a pen and crosses out the “intention paragraph’ Says “Is meaningless…window dressing
Adds could have been added as an obligation, as an intention “Not worth the paper it’s written on”
Findlay notes the Share Purchase Agreement says “The purchaser may waive any condition of this agreement”
“trash the SPA” I would say he just has.
What I don’t understand is Ticketus paid the money to Rangers FC who then loaned the money to Wavetower. Wavetower then paid off the bank debt. £18m I believe.
Why go about it in a convoluted way like that? Why didn’t Ranger’s pay Lloyds directly? I must be missing something.
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 4, 2017 at 18:34 7 Votes
AULDHEIDJUNE 4, 2017 at 13:42 Thanks for the reply. It makes some sense if at the time Ticketus thought eithera) Rangers are going to the wall under SDM and we will not be able to sell the stock of tickets we boughtorb) Rangers will not go to the wall but the necessary austerity will lead to a reduction in ST sales meaning it will take longer to sell our stock, so we cannot deal with SDM.However what made them so sure that Rangers under CW were not going to suffer the same fate under CW as under SDM above?Was the thinking at the time to do a pre pack under CW to dump debt and stay in the top flight and so carry on as before and the exit from the CL changed that thinking by making HMRC the largest creditor when unpaid VAT Paye and WTC liability (+btc potential liability?) was added to the creditors bill causing the CVA to fail?Was the deal Ticketus entered into at the time done on the premise of the pre pack Administration or even as fall back the Armageddon plan that Regan and Doncaster failed to sell to clubs when liquidation, caused by CL exit changed the landscape?I’ve read somewhere CW very unhappy at the CL exit. Very.—————————–Found this as it clicked into my mind when reading your post.——————-How does scottish administration differ from english?.. looks after the charge holder first and foremost Craig will call the shots.(from JD tweets)
However what made them so sure that Rangers under CW were not going to suffer the same fate under CW as under SDM above?Was the thinking at the time to do a pre pack under CW to dump debt and stay in the top flight and so carry on as before and the exit from the CLjust maybe how ticketus would rather do a 3 year deal with whyte than murray.i may be way off course though
———————
Some more info i found looking back at JD tweets.
Bryan email on the Armageddon of HMRC winning the big tax case suggests “instructing an Administrator to protect it’s interests.
The club is pre packed to rid it of the HMRC debt and Craig/wavetower take control and honour the Ticketus agreement.
HOMUNCULUS
JUNE 4, 2017 at 23:1
GOOSYGOOSY JUNE 4, 2017 at 22:07 =================================
Would she not have gone with “no case to answer” if she thought that.?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Unsure of the legal terminology but if you mean
What happens if the Judge thinks no crime has been committed?
Then the Jury ought to be discharged at the end of her summing up or at worse invited to give a verdict on this issue before considering further
On Monday it could go something like this
Lady Stacey may explain what evidence is needed to prove a ”crime” has been committed. She could single out where to look for this evidence in the responses by specific witnesses and in the “Agreed Statement of Facts “. She could make clear that the evidence needed to prove that a crime was committed is the same evidence that is needed to prove that the Defendant is Guilty. She could imply that key facts needed for certainty are missing
Her message might be
If the Crown has not proved that a crime has been committed then the only verdict is Not Guilty
If the Crown has proved that a crime was committed then the only verdict is Guilty
Not Proven is an inappropriate verdict since the evidence proving a crime has been committed is the same evidence that proves the Defendant guilty
JIMBOJUNE 5, 2017 at 16:31 3 Votes
What I don’t understand is Ticketus paid the money to Rangers FC who then loaned the money to Wavetower. Wavetower then paid off the bank debt. £18m I believe.
Why go about it in a convoluted way like that? Why didn’t Ranger’s pay Lloyds directly? I must be missing something.
———————–
AD “It was the club money that was being used to pay off the Loyds debt?
Betts “Wavetower were the owners of Rangers football club”
AD “Do you see it as an issue that the club asset is being used to pay off the debt”
Betts “The bank had control of those assets anyway”
AD “Wavetower had no funds”
Betts “The completion price was only a pound”
Betts says deal was £27mill in total, majority Ticketus money.£1mill from ,erchant £4.5m from whyte.
JIMBO
JUNE 5, 2017 at 16:31
==========================================
As I recall the idea wasn’t to pay off the debt it was to buy it along with the floating charge. Rangers provided Wavetower with the money to do that, having earned that money from selling it’s season tickets in advance.
So Rangers went from owing the £18m to Lloyds to owing it to Wavetower, which was wholly owned by Liberty Capital which was wholly owned by Craig Whyte.
So Wavetower owned Rangers’ debt, but they also owed the same amount to Rangers via the loan.
The big difference as I see it is who controlled the floating charge. If Rangers had simply cleared all of the debt to Lloyds by paying them then that would no longer have existed.
GOOSYGOOSY
JUNE 5, 2017 at 17:33
===============================
A “no case to answer” comes at the end of the prosecutions case. The defence basically says this is nonsense and we shouldn’t even have to ask a Jury to decide it. If the Judge agrees then there is “no case to answer”. I believe, just an opinion, that the Jury were sent home at the end of the prosecution case. That Findlay said that there was “no case to answer” and the the Judge disagreed.
(1) Immediately after the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused may intimate to the court his desire to make a submission that he has no case to answer both—
(a) on an offence charged in the indictment; and
(b) on any other offence of which he could be convicted under the indictment.
(2) If, after hearing both parties, the judge is satisfied that the evidence led by the prosecution is insufficient in law to justify the accused being convicted of the offence charged in respect of which the submission has been made or of such other offence as is mentioned, in relation to that offence, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, he shall acquit him of the offence charged in respect of which the submission has been made and the trial shall proceed only in respect of any other offence charged in the indictment.
(3) If, after hearing both parties, the judge is not satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, he shall reject the submission and the trial shall proceed, with the accused entitled to give evidence and call witnesses, as if such submission had not been made.
(4) A submission under subsection (1) above shall be heard by the judge in the absence of the jury.
Interesting read on the James Doleman Twitter feed today. Can any of our legal contributors confirm something to a layman like myself. Can a Judge instruct a jury that an accused person can only be found not guilty, or not proven? I’m a bit confused as to what all this telling the Jury what options are open to them means.
I thought Lady Stacey was very fair to both sides today and gave nothing away as to her thoughts. Each time that she seemed to be favouring one side, she would then express the counter argument.
The Financial Assistance charge seemed to be difficult for her ladyship to explain in laymans terms, probably as it was the first time such a charge has come up in a Scottish jury trial. Had it been in the Court of Session, we would have both legal teams making arguments, supported by precedents, then the judge would make an informed decision. The jury in this case does not have the luxury of knowing how the law has been applied previously.
The main defence to the FA charge offered by Findlay was in terms the exceptions provided in S678 SS4(b)
(b)the reduction or discharge of any such liability is only an incidental part of some larger purpose of the company, and the assistance is given in good faith in the interests of the company.
HOMUNCULUS
JUNE 5, 2017 at 17:59
Re
A “no case to answer” comes at the end of the prosecutions case.The defence basically says this is nonsense and we shouldn’t even have to ask a Jury to decide it. If the Judge agrees then there is “no case to answer”. I believe, just an opinion, that the Jury were sent home at the end of the prosecution case. That Findlay said that there was “no case to answer” and the Judge disagreed.
And
(3) If, after hearing both parties, the judge is not satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, he shall reject the submission and the trial shall proceed, with the accused entitled to give evidence and call witnesses, as if such submission had not been made
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As I recall after the Prosecution case was complete there was an adjournment This adjournment resulted in a further Agreed Statement of Facts which acknowledged that the typewritten note from Roland Phillips of the Takeover Panel was being accepted as true.
Financial Assistance Charge
This was the document that confirmed the Takeover Panel were aware in advance that the Ticketus purchase of STs would be used to clear the bank debt. In the absence of any other evidence from the Takeover Panel, the Defence is entitled to claim that the Takeover Panel were satisfied that using Ticketus money to clear the Bank debt was not financial assistance
Fraud Charge
The structure of the SPA with its non binding conditions coupled with the amnesia loss of key prosecution witnesses (including the Seller) leaves the prosecution with a weak case in proving deception and fraud
Also
The Takeover Panel note in the Agreed Statement of Facts rules out deception based on a covert intention to criminally give financial assistance
Meaning
If there is no financial assistance crime, then what is the deception?
It is understandable that a Seller could have been deceived into selling an asset for a lower price than his first offer. But if you sell the business for a £1 under a SPA with conditions that are not binding on the Purchaser you can hardly complain you were deceived.
So I reckon Findlay concluded he had the Fraud Charge in his pocket based solely on evidence from the Prosecution witnesses
Findlay chose not to call any witnesses for the defence when the parties returned to court with the agreed Statement of Facts. This strongly suggests he was also satisfied that there was no case to answer on the Financial Assistance charge
It may be as you suggest Findlay was unable to persuade Lady Stacey to abandon the two charges. However it may also be that she was persuaded to abandon the Financial Assistance Charge but not the Fraud Charge. If this was the case then Findlay may have been sufficiently satisfied to call it a day in the belief the Jury would still acquit his Client
IMO
This case has been a huge waste of public money which simply adds to the mountain of cost associated with the demise of Rangers plc
The sooner this liquidating corpse is buried the better
UPTHEHOOPS
JUNE 5, 2017 at 18:54
================================
I am not a legal type by any manner of means, however I do know that there are three possible verdicts open to a Jury in Scotland.
In layman’s terms
Guilty – He did it.
Not Guilty – He didn’t do it.
Not Proven – We don’t know, but it’s not up to him to prove his innocence it’s up to the prosecution to prove his guilt and they didn’t manage it. So the prosecution have failed.
It is important to remember that “Not Proven” is an acquittal.
It’s an interesting history in Scotland. “Proven” and “Not Proven” actually came first, but it kind of sounds like “He did it but they couldn’t prove it”, which is a bit harsh. So the more positive “Not Guilty” came in.
So originally you had “Proven” and “Not Proven” which evolved into “Guilty”, “Not Guilty” and “Not Proven”.
Please don’t be surprised if a lawyer comes along and point out that is an urban myth which I happen to have heard somewhere. That is entirely possible.
This is the first chance I have had to look at the @james doleman tweets and I have to say this is classic Donald Findlay. The theatre of the Court. You can just see him doing it with a flourish.
One further comment on today’s proceedings was that Findlay brought the jury’s attention to the last sentence of clause 14.5. It was also something that Lady Stacey also referred to in her summing up.
Reading that sentence in isolation, it could be interpreted that the Purchaser (Wavetower / Whyte) had the right to conform to, or ignore any conditions of the agreement, as he saw fit.
Also from Findlay, an interesting one.
“Findlay says that in any crime there has to be a “Mens Rea” a guilty mind.”
I have mentioned over the last few days that whilst the companies act offence may not be an “absolute offence” it is much closer to being one than the fraud. An absolute offence is one which does not require knowledge. It doesn’t actually require a “mens rea” it just requires an “actus reus” a guilty act.
Basically his argument is that you cannot commit a crime if you do not know what you are doing is a crime. He rather nicely pointed out to the Jury that this offence has not been tried in Scotland before, prior to going down that road. In essence he said “FFS who even knew what he was doing was a crime, would you have known that members of the Jury”
Clever stuff. It ignores that people in certain circles and professions would have much more knowledge of such things as others, therefore would have the necessary “mens rea” but it’s a nice tactic.
HomunculusJune 5, 2017 at 21:04
‘..classic Donald Findlay. The theatre of the Court. You can just see him doing it with a flourish.’
_________
Another little bit of theatrical colour was the reference by Findlay to Fergus McCann as a businessman who had a plan to rescue the ‘great rival’ club, in imminent danger of insolvency; implemented his plan; restored the club, took his profit and departed.
This was said in the context of asserting that that was what CW was doing, trying to rescue RFC , and if he were to have made some personal profit, so what? Whether other business people thought or think that his plan was sound is neither here nor there.
HOMUNCULUS June 5, 2017 at 20:56
The reference to the three possible verdicts in Scotland is correct but in this case there are at least two hurdles.
Homunculus refers to “He did it”; “He didn’t do it”; etc.
As I read this we are at the second hurdle. The first hurdle for the Jury to clear is to decide whether or not there is an “it”. Is there a crime? If not there is no “it” and nobody did “it”.
Any verdict which begins “Not” is more than acceptable to a Defence Solicitor/Advocate/QC but some accused see Not Proven as a slur or slight on their character. I once had the experience of going down to the cells at Glasgow High Court after a five week Murder Trial to hear someone tell me that he wanted to appeal a majority Not Proven verdict. That notion lasted as long as it took to explain that a successful appeal would probably result in a fresh Trial and the possibility of another Jury bringing in a Guilty verdict.
Nothing like a potential Life Sentence to concentrate the mind wonderfully.
LUGOSI
JUNE 6, 2017 at 08:37
===================================
Thanks for clearing that up.
A very good point, there really has to be an it before someone can have done it.
There were twitter reports at the weekend that Dave King had indicated that Alastair Johnston would be joining to the RIFC Board, when he was at the NARSA meeting in Las Vegas.
Today, the Scottish Sun is running with the story, suggesting that an announcement will be made in the next week. I guess they will have been holding off until the conclusion of the CW trial, lest he should have been called as a witness and his previous decisions as RFC chairman held up to ridicule.
I see that the discussion about the difference between Not Guilty and Not Proven and all its peculiarities and nuances have been comprehensively and exhaustively addressed by Lady Stacey in her Charge to the Jury.
James Doleman tweeted Lady Stacey told the Jury that they
“have exactly the same effect.”
Well, that’s certainly cleared up that bit of Jurisprudence.
Jury decision – not guilty on both charges. By a majority verdict.
CW to make statement outside court. JD will report.
What a bloody waste of taxpayers money!
The wrong defendant.
The wrong charges.
And despite loads of nefarious nonsense it seems nobody is to blame.
Move along everybody.
Oops! James Doleman now being told there will not be a statement.
Free the Ibrox
5,4,3,2, 1 🙂The wanderer has returned
Company Announcement – Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC)
The Board is delighted to announce that Alastair Johnston has, with immediate effect, accepted its invitation to join the Board of RIFC.
Alastair is a former Chairman of Rangers who parted with the Club in 2011 pursuant to Craig Whyte’s takeover which he vehemently opposed.
We can now again benefit from Alastair’s experience of the Club’s affairs as well as his long and successful career in the broader sports marketing industry. His contributions to the Club will play an important part in determining our strategy as we navigate our journey back to the highest echelons of European football.
The thing is, though, how do the Bears react? I’m almost certain that the bulk of them will just be angry that he got off with it, when what they should be thinking is that if Whyte’s not guilty of defrauding Murray and fraudulently gaining control of Rangers, then why did Murray let him buy Rangers ‘legally’?
It’s clear from the lack of threads on TRFC* sites that none of the Bears have been that bothered about the trial to take any interest in it, so won’t have seen the evidence as tweeted by the likes of that well-known ‘Rangers hater’ (!!!) James Doleman. Similarly, the SMSM haven’t really been willing to detail much of the evidence given about Murray simply being desperate to sell no matter what.
As a result, I don’t see many of them taking the view that if Whyte’s ‘innocent’, Murray must be ‘guilty’, which is the direction their minds should be going in. Instead, this will be just further proof to them of how all the authorities in Scotland are corrupt and anti-Rangers.
Of course, the press could help them by pointing out the truth, but do any of us expect that?
A large G+T & an even larger smile in Belgravia this evening – when’s the book out ?
The biggest injustice was the failure of the Police and the COPFS.
We had seven people on the original indictment and we ended up with one. Why was that?
It was pure incompetence by the Police and the COPFS in gathering evidence and putting a case together. They had so much information in their hands but failed to put a coherent argument.
Ahmad we know about, having done a runner to Pakistan to escape arrest.
Green (notwithstanding the Sevco 5088/Scotland debacle) was judged to have acted reasonably as CEO. The price he paid was not unreasonable given the distressed assets and no licence to play football. The bonus 5m shares was not a unreasonable reward given that he raised £22m in the IPO.
Grier was deemed not to have had undue influence when he assisted Whyte as it was Whyte who ultimately took the decisions.
D&P (Clark and Whitehouse) were deemed to have acted fairly and gained the best possible price for the assets. This was not helped by the COPFS not being able to show what a “true value” or “market value” for the assets should have been.
All three of the D&P guys had privileged evidence removed for their offices illegally by Police Scotland and the City of London Police. They have already had a damages award of £500k from the COLP and are currently pursuing PS in an action at the Court of Session
…… and perhaps the worst of all Gary Withey. He had taken legal advice in preparation for an action by the Oldco (BDO) against Collyer Bristow and prepared notes with his lawyer in defence of that action. However Police Scotland (the lead being DCI Robertson) visited his home and despite being told that a box of papers were Client/Lawyer confidential and therefore privileged, the papers were taken away and given to the COPFS. The COPFS, in their infinite wisdom, then decided to disclose these documents to the other defendants. It put Withey in the position of being open to arguments by the other defendants who may wish to blame him for what had happened. Lord Bannatyne was scathing of the Advocate Depute (James Keegan) as he described the papers as mapping out Withey’s defence strategy, meaning that he could not get a fair trial and would have to be released.
Keegan was amateur, at best, and tried to salvage some credibility as the cases against the other defendants was falling apart and issued a press release saying that Green and the D&P guys could be re-indicted on other charges. Again Lord Bannatyne and the D&P legal teams were not amused and asked the the Lord Advocate be summoned to court to explain why such a statement was issued. Needless to say Keegan was quickly removed from the Crown team.
Did the PF consult the SFA on how to frame the charges a la LNS styleee?.
It really beggars belief, that of the evidence presented, minuted meetings that never took place, alias emails, sworn testimonies, info withheld from the data-room, and the perilous distress of Rangers(I.L.) , that the PF could isolate and decide there was only one perpetrator worthy of an attempt to prosecute for fraud.
They are asking the questions if not CW then who?
Your board and media while you sat and watched it and you are doing so again with a new club.
All the same faces creeping out the woodwork for one last dip at the big pot. YOu get what you deserve.
I have not been on any of the Ibrox blogs but I have read elsewhere that some of their fans reckoned all along that Rangers would not get a fair hearing in Glasgow It wasn’t Rangers who were on trial). Apparently jurors were asked in the selection process if they had ever been a shareholder in RFC.
To be fair it seems most didn’t take much notice of the trial. Not sure whether they are bothered or not although they should be. If Craig Whyte isn’t the bad guy, who is?
Wonder who owns the book and film rights now that Worthington Group have been liquidated and CW co Law Financial have applied for dissolution ?
CW sold 26% of Law Financial to Worthington in mid 2012 including the option to acquire film and book rights to the takeover
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald/20150829/281487865106789
Lest I forget.
I still don’t do Twitter.
Thank You Mr Doleman.
Alastair Johnston on the death of an institution (club).
https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/872094018984972288
Interesting that the Beeb has a “16 things we learned from CW trial” but not the one about SFA and the crystallised date lie. It will not feature outwith us bampots.
The Scottish Sun has now revealed the result of the contempt of court charge against Whyte that concluded towards the end of last year. I’m sure that John Clark can also fill us in on some of the details having attended some of the hearings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
So the SFA are considering chasing Whyte for his unpaid fine. As this was imposed in regards to his position at rfc and they “insist” Sevco are the same club, would it not be easier to chase the club for it????
I think not……
Move along now!
Move along – there is officially nobody to blame for the short term and inconvenient demise of Glasgow Rangers (in liquidation) and also alive and kicking, 3rd in the recent Premier League and training hard for a successful UEFA Cup run.
The dust hasn’t settled yet and the friendly chaps at the BBC are well on their way to corralling us and ensuring the moving on process is successful.
Yes there is a bit of slanted quasi News reporting and even an off the pace “16 things you did not know but will after you read this” mini feature that is defined more by what it has missed out and the lack of any real questions.
But its really thin fare and fails to even try to be anything more than a friendly summary.
Why?
Because people have decided there is no need for questions when the establishment club never really went away. All that really happened was a simple change of “holding companies” after Craigie’s Club, bought furra pound had to “restructure”.
A wee and seamless substitution.
The real news for all Rangers and football fans is that all is well.
Alister Johnson is coming back to replace the singing talent that was and is John Gilligan, Dermot’s pal.
And a new “wonderkid” loan signing is coming from Benfica.
These two headlines just broke coincidentally after the trial verdict was announced and you’d have to have a hard heart to think it had anything to do with season book sales.
I wonder however what their plan would have been had Craigie been found guilty.
I guess we’d have seen some righteous indignation and a call to the troops to come in and bring the club back to where we are all told by our friends in the MSM that they belong.
So Johnson and Wonderkid will have to do and Craigie is yesterday’s news already and not worth letting the real journos loose on.
Good Evening
I do not often post nowadays but I, among many other posters, predicted a long time ago that Whyte would be found not guilty.
The purchase price was £1 and after you have paid your pound it is your toy to play with as you like.
So they think it is all over;not by a longshot.
This is only the beginning of a new chapter.
Watch out for Craigy boy going after the assets which should have rightfully been his until Green pulled the switcheroo.
For Sevco now to appoint yet another member of the cabal who were in charge at the demise of Rangers is just typical of their hubris.
Murray should now be disclosed for what he is – a jumped up barrow boy who took the taxpayers of this country for £1 Billion and still continues to lauded as a whizz kid.
Strip him of his knighthood
Get rid of Reagan and Doncaster and clean up the corrupt SFA.
Last year I did not attend a single game and do not intend ever to do so until these parasites have gone and Celtic Football club do something about the serial cheating of Rangers(IN LIQUIDATION)
Make up your mind Mr Regan
“No regrets” …… “I think the situation that has unfolded over five years is regrettable”.
Going by a snippet I just heard on Radio Scotland, Mark Daly has a interview with Alastair Johnston and a CF recording of Whyte and Grier. Should be on Reporting Scotland at 6:30pm.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 6, 2017 at 13:26 10 Votes
The wanderer has returned
Company Announcement – Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC)The Board is delighted to announce that Alastair Johnston has, with immediate effect, accepted its invitation to join the Board of RIFC.Alastair is a former Chairman of Rangers who parted with the Club in 2011 pursuant to Craig Whyte’s takeover which he vehemently opposed.We can now again benefit from Alastair’s experience of the Club’s affairs as well as his long and successful career in the broader sports marketing industry. His contributions to the Club will play an important part in determining our strategy as we navigate our journey back to the highest echelons of European football.
—————–
The same AJ who increased the salary of the chief executive
Mark Daly just on BBC Scotland local 6.30 news with ten minutes of honest reporting and insight that involved Alistair Johnston and points a lot of fingers at SDM.
SDM strongly refutes etc etc
It will be interesting to see if there is any traction.
Mark Daly’s piece was okay, but still saying Whyte’s a villain. Surely, though, he was more of a victim and they must know this? Basically, Murray sold him a pup and unfortunately that pup included Ally who threw away the treats that CW thought he might be buying.
And giving AJ a platform to spout sh*te about him murdering an institution when AJ as a board member must know that it was already murdered when Whyte got hold of it is reprehensible imo.
If people started reporting this, maybe the bears would start to get it.
Whats worse
Being murdered or being liquidated ?
Alistair Johnston had a front row seat in 2011
So He knows
It doesn`t make any difference
If you`re Rangers you will survive
Except the rest of the world knows different
Well I for one am glad the trial happened and glad we have reached an outcome.
While I don’t think, on the basis of the evidence heard, Mr Whyte is, for want of a better phrase, “whiter than white”, I do think the trial laid clear the trail of evidence as to who was responsible for what befell Rangers.
Rangers werent in the verge of bankruptcy in 1988 when they were purchased by Sir David Murray, but they sure as hell were when he sold them. Mr White may have greased the wheels in the end but the tracks were laid by Sir David Murray. And I think you’d be a fool to think otherwise.
NORMANBATESMUMFCJUNE 6, 2017 at 16:53 11 Votes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40174547
So the SFA are considering chasing Whyte for his unpaid fine. As this was imposed in regards to his position at rfc and they “insist” Sevco are the same club, would it not be easier to chase the club for it????
I think not……
——————
Would this be classed as a football debt?
and if so were all football debts not to be paid as part of 5 way agreement?
And how can you get a licence to play in europe if you have an unpaid football debt?
————–
Looking for any help on this
I spelt the last “Whyte” incorrectly. I’m embarrassed.
RYANGOSLINGJUNE 6, 2017 at 19:29
Good to hear from you again
Ryan – can’t argue with that.
SDM took all the big decisions that drove Rangers as was to the brink of insolvency and ultimate liquidation.
The fawning press, the conniving bankers and all the brown brogues played along and rode the bandwagon.
In the end they all contributed to the death of the club they professed to love.
The really sad thing is, the same vultures are still trying to make a buck from the Rangers fans.
The blue pound must be more addictive than crack cocaine.
As a Licence Fee payer I am disgusted that Alastair Johnston was handed a platform by the BBC to spout the nonsense he did. It should be clear to anyone now that Rangers were heading down the tubes whether Whyte was there or not. I am sure Johnston knows that, and all he is doing is fuelling already irrational minds with more conspiracies. Worse still, now that he is back in the boardroom at Ibrox, he will be treated with a respect by the media that no other director of any other club in Scotland receives, just like all his fellow board members.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Stewart Regan appointed to UEFA Club Competitions Board:
ZILCH
The blue pound must be more addictive than crack cocaine.
it’s easier to get a hold of it,even if you have no money
UPTHEHOOPSJUNE 6, 2017 at 19:44 5 Votes
As a Licence Fee payer I am disgusted that Alastair Johnston was handed a platform by the BBC to spout the nonsense he did. It should be clear to anyone now that Rangers were heading down the tubes whether Whyte was there or not. I am sure Johnston knows that,
————-Findlay moves on to then rangers chairman Alister Johnson, Notes his board brought in “not a penny” of investment.
RYANGOSLING
JUNE 6, 2017 at 19:29
==========================================
Few people have thought otherwise for quite some time.
As an example of what happens when the finger of blame is pointed in the wrong direction, TRFC/RIFC now has three members of the last RFC board, a board that was slated for it’s incompetence in court, sitting in the blue room at Ibrox. A board that is currently plashing the cash on players, just as they did in the run up to the sale of their club to Craig Whyte. I am sure the bears all think Christmas has come early (except for Ryan who earlier posted an excellent summation of what really happened to Rangers)!
It wasn’t revealed in court, but I wonder how much responsibility Johnston carries for the disastrous contract handed out to Ally McCoist!
Cluster OneJune 6, 2017 at 19:52
‘..Stewart Regan appointed to UEFA Club Competitions Board: ‘
___________
“Birds of a feather’, or ‘like calling unto like’.
The people who fix up competitions clearly welcome fellow fixers. Bad cess to them all.
I don’t know who wrote this, but it’s LOL material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNzurhbqADY
A favourite Christmas film of mine is”It’s a Wonderful Life” however about 5 or 6 years ago I read an article in one of the Sunday papers about that film which punctured my admiration of the story. Essentially when all is said and done Mr Potter (the Baddie) still owns the bank and 99% of the businesses in Bedford Falls despite the redemption of George Bailey (the Goodie)
The events of today and what has occurred since 2011 have echoes of the Christmas classic in that nothing has changed very much. The TRFC board now has 3 members from yesteryear and I wonder what odds would be given of a certain Knight of the Realm making a return.
Folk will remember this:
the Takeover Panel ‘intimated that it directed that Mr King should announce an offer pursuant to Rule 9 of the Takeover Code by 12 April 2017.
No such offer having been announced, the Takeover Panel has today [April 13th 2017] initiated proceedings in the Court of Session, Edinburgh under section 955 of the Companies Act 2006 seeking an order requiring Mr King to comply with these rulings.’
I see from the Rolls of the Court of Session the following entry:
” 6th June
LADY WOLFFE
STARRED MOTION
1hr P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for orders sec955 Maclay Murray & Spens LLP Lindsays”
Given that the Takeover Panel has rarely sought enforcement through the Courts, could this relate to the enforcement action v DK?
If it does, then I missed it!
Could it just have been a preliminary hearing, with no judgment made today? Or will it have been continued to a further date for full arguments to be heard?
Has anyone seen anything about it? The media might have been too taken up with the Whyte verdict to have been aware.
Or maybe today’s thingy has nothing at all to do with King.
EX LUDO
JUNE 6, 2017 at 21:47
================================
That’s kind of the point though, I’m sure you will agree.
Who is richer, Bailey or Potter.
A Christmas Carol has a similar message. Lots of money in the bank, or a life of meaning, which is better, which is richer.
JOHN CLARK
JUNE 6, 2017 at 21:48
===============================
Funny, I was thinking about that very case today JC. Surely something must be happening to enforce the decision by now.
I was also conjecturing about Alistair Johnston joining the board of the PLC and someone else perhaps standing down from it. Maybe a new chair being appointed.
Unrelated thoughts obviously.
Nice to see the Circus entertainment has delivered yet again.
Will this saga never end?
As has been said elsewhere with three previous incompetents on board and T’Rangers throwing cash about as if we’re going out of fashion there is plenty to keep us all going for a bit longer yet.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 6, 2017 at 21:56 Rate This
JOHN CLARKJUNE 6, 2017 at 21:48===============================
Funny, I was thinking about that very case today JC. Surely something must be happening to enforce the decision by now.
I was also conjecturing about Alistair Johnston joining the board of the PLC and someone else perhaps standing down from it. Maybe a new chair being appointed.
Unrelated thoughts obviously.
—————WAS JUST ABOUT TO SAY THE SAME.after reading JC post.
one in one out,but one still in the background getting paid
I couldn’t help but notice in today’s cringeworthy interview that Alastair Johnston accused Craig Whyte of murdering “an Institution”. Now I appreciate I might be accused of playing with semantics, but I really do wish these peepul would make their minds up.
Clearly, the entity that was an Institution and which died in the “murder” was none other than Rangers Football Club – the club – because it’s inconceivable that Johnston or anybody else would be upset at the death of a meaningless company.
I remember forecasting to a bluenose mate back in 2012 that a scam was underway to cleanse Rangers’ of their massive debts and eventually ‘return them to where they belong’, in the hands of ‘Real Rangers Men’.
Johnston’s return to the board brings that prediction one step closer to reality. It might take another five years, but can we entirely rule out the possibility of David Murray becoming involved again at Ibrox some time in the future? It would then just need a rehabilitated Martin Bain to kiss and make up and we’d have the old board back together again.
As Alastair Johnston knows fine well, every single member of that old board, including himself and Murray, are the real murderers of the club he and they were entrusted by the Rangers fans to look after. Johnston can try all he wants to squirm out of taking responsibility, but, in common with Murray and the other board members, his fingerprints are indelibly printed on the trigger of the murder weapon.
Cluster One
June 6, 2017 at 19:34
Would this be classed as a football debt? and if so were all football debts not to be paid as part of 5 way agreement? And how can you get a licence to play in europe if you have an unpaid football debt? ————– Looking for any help on this
I think you might have opened a can of worms,
1. football debt should equal no licence per 5 WA,
2. If a personal debt towards CW join the creditors you have been shafted liquidation kills this avenue
Do you honestly think that Regan would ask Sevco or anyone to pay this, the guy is full of bluster?
This was a statement of defiance that regardless of the trial not going their way they will stick to the denial story, they are moulded from the same substance that we sometimes get on our shoes and we cam smell and recognise that substance when ever we are around it.They have been found out today it was official the club and company of CW which he purchased from DM went bust and due to crippling debts which would not be met the main creditor called a rejection of a CVA. AJ was right an incorporated instituion was brought to its knees in admin and once on it’s knees put to the sword and killed, not murdered, put out of its misery, for all those thinking nothing has changed think again you have witnessed something you would never have thought possible, history will show the Institution was brought down and all who did it were part of the institution.
What a time to have lived indeed.