Make our Mind Up Time


Make our Mind Up Time

I have been receiving quite a bit of  unflattering mail about the “agenda” being pursued on this blog. Depending on the correspondent, that is defined as  either denying people their civil right to gloat, hiding the “truth” that people of the RC faith are welcomed and encouraged to come to Ibrox, or indulging in Chamberlain-style appeasement with the banning of the “H” word and other incontrovertible rights-to-insult.

The objection to moderation of any sort appears to be at the root of these diatribes. Our position here in terms of moderation is clear. There is no “agenda” other than a desire not to be chasing up posts containing the rantings and ravings of partisan types who “demand” their right to be heard no matter how objectionable it might be to those hear it. We are not here to service a conduit for conspiracy theories based in Masonic Lodges or the Vatican. There are plenty of places where people can indulge in that kind of stuff, but the moderators here are just not interested. The administration of the site takes around four hours per day. That’s a long time trawling through posts which often set out deliberately to insult, abuse or otherwise cause offence – mildly or otherwise.

Our view is that the blog will only have cross-club support if we stick to what we can substantiate by fact or reasonably infer from the way things proceed. Further, we feel that if we are to gain credibility as an alternative source of news and comment to the MSM, that we need to cut down on the fansite type comments. There is no dignity (a word often used here) in calling the Rangers manager or their fans names. We need to maintain higher standards of impartiality than football fansites, because we know that a united fan base can actually make a difference as RTC did when the SPL chairmen were gearing up for a parachute for the new Rangers. OT discussions are fine, and often amusing, but they shouldn’t become the main reason to come here.

The requirement to have a WordPress account before posting here is not in any way draconian. It is designed to make people accountable for what they post whilst still maintaining anonymity, and therefore being exempt from moderation. Those who don’t like it are not being compelled to carry out any instruction – they only need go to a place where they don’t feel so constrained.

If the main issue of this blog becomes how the blog is being administered – or how the moderation policy is affecting the human rights of posters, we may as well just pack up now.

There have never been any objections to the suggested posting rules on here. We assume that people who post are reasonably intelligent. Therefore it seems fair to assume that those who have ignored the suggested posting rules did so deliberately. If that doesn’t happen, moderation is just not required.

If what we are trying to do fails because of our posting framework, then we will be blamed. We are certain though, that we can have no credibility if we indulge ourselves in conspiracy theories and constant references to anachronistic organisations, the Scottish school system, and the leanings of referees.

There is real corruption in Scottish football. It is based not on religious rivalries but on greed and acquisitiveness. The only thing that matters is that we identify that corruption and help put an end to it.

Our job is to ask questions and not jump to our own conclusions about the answers. That will divide us as surely as the realisation of the depth of the corruption united us. To be totally united as fans, we need to have more Rangers fans on here. Therefore we need to create an atmosphere that they can be comfortable with. Is that the case right now? The anger for RFC’s mismanagement and abuse of the game in Scotland is real, but we need to look forward if we are truly committed to ensuring that what happened to Rangers can’t happen again.

We’re not gonna throw the toys out of the pram here. If anyone else would like to run the blog under those circumstances of zero moderation, we will be happy to hand over the domain. There is no “agenda” – we will be happy to hand the work over to others.

The initial posting which proposed the change to WordPress logins received over 130 TUs and only three TDs. Subsequently the post advising of the changes got around 100 TUs and 100 TDs. It seems that minds are not entirely made up.

To get some closure on this once and for all, we have added a poll below to end on Saturday at 1700 where you can decide whether you want to go along with our original plan in terms of login and moderation. We obviously recommend that you vote “Yes”

About the author

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.

2,133 Comments so far

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on7:20 am - Sep 29, 2012

john clarke says:
September 28, 2012 at 22:47
4 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 28, 2012 at 21:28

‘What rules in scottish football exist that would allow Sevco to refuse entry to the SPL if they ever won the 1st division?

Do they HAVE to go up if they win the league?

Or can they refuse?’
I was intrigued enough by the question to have a read at the SFL Constitution and rules, and the SPL’s Articles and the SFA Articles.

There seems to be provision in the SFL rules for clubs in the 3rd div to refuse promotion to 2nd, and clubs in 2nd to refuse promotion to 1st.

But absolutely nothing about clubs in 1st being able or not able to refuse promotion to the SPL!

So, come the day (in the year 20??) when ‘The Rangers FC Ltd’ are champions of the 1st Div and CG says ‘we will never play in the Premier League’, what happens?

thanks john

so, chuckles openly stating he won’t play by the rules

another disrepute charge?

would love someone from the sfa/sfl/spl to challenge his statement and correct him based on the rules

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on7:36 am - Sep 29, 2012

Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 29, 2012 at 07:20
0 0 Rate This
john clarke says:
September 28, 2012 at 22:47
4 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 28, 2012 at 21:28
‘What rules in scottish football exist that would allow Sevco to
refuse entry to the SPL if they ever won the 1st division?
Do they HAVE to go up if they win the league?
Or can they refuse?’
I was intrigued enough by the question to have a read at the SFL
Constitution and rules, and the SPL’s Articles and the SFA Articles.
There seems to be provision in the SFL rules for clubs in the 3rd
div to refuse promotion to 2nd, and clubs in 2nd to refuse
promotion to 1st.
But absolutely nothing about clubs in 1st being able or not able to
refuse promotion to the SPL!
So, come the day (in the year 20??) when ‘The Rangers FC Ltd’ are
champions of the 1st Div and CG says ‘we will never play in the
Premier League’, what happens?
thanks john
so, chuckles openly stating he won’t play by the rules
another disrepute charge?
would love someone from the sfa/sfl/spl to challenge his
statement and correct him based on the rules
What’s to stop him folding TRFC, forming TTRFC, buying the assets (including selected history) and applying to join the SFL? Effectively starting the whole process over again.

PS If the news about Corsica is true (I hope it isn’t), I’ll be raising a glass of Balvennie in his memory.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:27 am - Sep 29, 2012

briggsbhoy says:

September 29, 2012 at 02:12

Start by doing what’s necessary; then do what’s possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible.

Francis of Assisi

Was this written for the Blogger bampots?

Briggsbhoy….thank you for that. I have a few professional mountains to climb in the next few months and will think of this.

PS I will be in the Briggs in ten days time and will give to a spritual/metaphorical “nod”.

OT but sometimes it does help…especially when I think of Corsica (with whom I exchanged a few very pleasant posts.)

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on8:31 am - Sep 29, 2012

I,like many others,have been following RTC and now TSFM since the early days.
We’ve had good days,bad days,fall-outs,fun days like the “Fish Night”,discussions about Mouldmasters,lots of stuff.
Today,however,with the reported passing of Corsica,if true,is to me,the saddest day.

Rest in peace,’ll be sorely missed.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on8:53 am - Sep 29, 2012

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:54 am - Sep 29, 2012

bogsdollox says:
September 28, 2012 at 22:51
4 0 Rate This
September 28, 2012 at 20:46

StevieBC says:
September 28, 2012 at 20:18

If I have this correct: Charlie is – allegedly – attempting to deceive punters at GBP500 a pop, based on supposedly nothing more than fantastic moonbeams.
The only deception involved will be self-deception, at which the fans of RFC are world class. There will be no prospectus (how could there have been?), no stock market will be involved, members of the “Rangers Family” will simply get a letter inviting them to part with multiples of £500
in exchange for shares in a private company. As simple as that.

Nothing to do with the SFA, for sure. A wholly private matter. Would the FSA get involved? I very much doubt it, unless unjustifiable claims were made about investment potential. Green is just selling worthless papers to a bunch of deluded chumps. They will fall over themselves to buy. The tears will come shortly afterwards, but who can they blame? Oh, I forgot, anyone but themselves.

Green will, of course, be in Monte Carlo by then, sipping Champagne with Whyte, and discussing their next joint venture.

Why would the FSA not get involved if this is an offer to invest to the public?

Barring a few, none of the season ticket holders are currently shareholders.
Here is the answer- the bears who invest are on their own when it all goes pop-sorry I can’t post a link, but copy/paste should work.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on9:07 am - Sep 29, 2012

neepheid @ 08:54

From the FSA article

We believe most crowdfunding should be targeted at sophisticated investors who know how to value a startup business, understand the risks involved and that investors could lose all of their money.
Sophisticated investors, yup that sums up the majority of Sevco supporters
They would be as well just handing Charlie a £500 donation

As for the Corsica rumour, I’ll wait for confirmation

View Comment

droidPosted on9:08 am - Sep 29, 2012

See justice was handed down somewhat more swiftly to Falkirk –

It’s an unfortunate situation but is it, in part, of their own making as they voted for the Setanta deal ❓

Of wider interest is the following –

Reasons for Decision

25. Undoubtedly, the Club did rely on Miss Sinclair in regard to payroll matters. It is clear from HMRC’s screen prints that contact about payroll was with her and that HMRC had been told that payroll had been outsourced to her. As a professional advisor in these matters she should have been aware of the penalty regime, that the payments were not being made on time and that penalties would therefore accrue. If there were failings in what she did or did not do or advice she did or did not give, as to which there was no evidence available, then the Club’s remedy lies with her. The fact that the Club relied on her does not amount to a reasonable excuse.

How many of the excuses we have endured in print, on the air waves, online and on TV, will amount to a reasonable excuse ❓


View Comment

AgrajagPosted on9:21 am - Sep 29, 2012

oldgold says:
September 29, 2012 at 00:12

A draft SFA statement was agreed after all day discussions last Monday and scheduled for publication the following day at noon.
I have a copy of the statement and fully understand why SFA lawyers on Tuesday morning strongly advised against releasing the document.
There are now no plans to release an alternative statement.
However, it has been agreed that the Nimmo Smith Tribunal will not now sit: there are agreements in place that now obviate it.
And it will be the last “judicial” inquiry called for and paid for by the SFA.
They are moving to bring this all back in-house.


That will be an interesting vote.

As I recall the vote for independent inquiries was carried unanimously. Everyone thought it was an excellent idea, to bring impartiality into the procedures.

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on9:23 am - Sep 29, 2012

View Comment

droidPosted on9:25 am - Sep 29, 2012

Corisca ❓

Shirley not 😯 ❓

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on9:29 am - Sep 29, 2012

Agrajag @ 09:21

Oldgold is one of Jack’s better known trolls
He is well known for posting out and out bovine excrement

View Comment

TSFMPosted on9:39 am - Sep 29, 2012

campsiejoe says:

September 29, 2012 at 09:29(Edit)

Agrajag @ 09:21

Oldgold is one of Jack’s better known trolls
He is well known for posting out and out bovine excrement


True. It’s also not one of his more plausible explorations.

For a start, it’s an SPL inquiry not an SFA one. Also, if there were reasons specifically to abandon Nimmo’s inquiry that would not hold for a general case in a completely different organisation.

If true, this is something that would certainly have leaked out by now.

Absolutely no doubt that Old Gold is trolling here, and I did think long and hard before giving him posting privileges again, but if we can’t give him a chance, where’s the love eh? 🙂

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:46 am - Sep 29, 2012

duplesis says:
September 28, 2012 at 22:21
16 2 Rate This

Some of us still think of a floating charge in terms of attacking play on a hoverpitch. So, after many months of reading about an fc, I appreciated the attempt to put the concept into plain English in your post:

“A Floating charge is like a net which hangs over the assets of a company. Unless and until it has crystallised, it doesn’t attach to any assets. Assets can come and go from the company. Assets which leave the company are no longer subject to the floating charge. Assets which come into the company become subject to the floating charge. If the floating charge crystallises, the “net” falls, and whatever assets the company has at that time may be caught by it.”

View Comment

droidPosted on9:53 am - Sep 29, 2012

TSFM says:
September 29, 2012 at 09:39

One love indeed, the SPL is the better for it this year and we are just half way through the first trimester. Looking forward to another weekend of crackin upredictable results :mrgreen:

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on10:09 am - Sep 29, 2012

Hoping the Corsica rumour is incorrect, would be a sad loss to us all. Will await more news from TSFM.

View Comment

mickleenPosted on10:11 am - Sep 29, 2012

Read this on Kerrydale street and had to check if it was a Tin Soldier effort.

Favourite bit

‘ We blew so much smoke up Coisty’s backside Chick Young’s probably now got a bad cough.’

Tam Cowan, I salute you.

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on10:15 am - Sep 29, 2012

Is Rapid Restructuring an attempt at blitzkrieg? To change the football landscape before anyone can do anything about it? It seems more like the Battle of the Bulge – a thrusting attempt to delay or halt the tide of facts and justice currently “incoming”. In reality, it’s the deluded ranting from deep within the bunker, probably humoured by those closest but, outside the concrete, many realise Der Krieg ist Verloren. Will they face justice or flee to South America? “Adios, adios, adios…”
Will our clubs “follow orders” or follow their conscience?
I can understand the appeal of the Mosquito but I’m hoping for something much bigger. With a Little Boy on board. Is it 8:15 yet?

I’ll get my flak jacket!

View Comment

TSFMPosted on10:27 am - Sep 29, 2012

One of the “Corsica” messages passed on to us was that CG had made several attempts to buy Leeds United, but each time was chased off by Bates. Corsica was told this by Bates himself, although why he chased him off is not clear.

It is suggested that there may be links between CG and the secretive Dubai consortium which is now in the process of buying that club.

I don’t see how the Rangers expedition would leverage CG in the Leeds situation though, but there may be some of our resident experts who would?

If it is a topic worth discussing, then fair enough. If not, we can add it to the bank of questions as yet unanswered.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on10:32 am - Sep 29, 2012

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence
Is SFL Chief Exec David Longmuir now THE key player in Scottish Football. (No league reorganisation without his members.) yes or no ?

7m Charlie Malloy ‏@cbmalloy07
@bbcjimspence Have u heard rumours of the rapid restructuring that is at advanced stage – Phil McG tweeted about it last night

4m Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence
@cbmalloy07 meeting of SPl on Monday past. Problem is the powerbrokers have discovered the sfl clubs will not be dictated to any longer

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:34 am - Sep 29, 2012

mickleen says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:11
1 0 Rate This

Tam Cowan, I salute you.

Brilliant. And in the DR too.

More fun later:

Today 12:00
Stuart and Tam are joined by Rangers legend John ‘Bomber’ Brown.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on10:44 am - Sep 29, 2012

oldgold says:

September 29, 2012 at 00:12

Welcome back! I can only assume that re-appearance of Ole Iron Pyrites presages some really dreadful news for Rangers. 😉

While the case for league re-construction is as strong as ever, I doubt that the club’s views will have changed. If any re-structuring plan is seen as designed for the benefit of one club, they will vote it down. In fact, I would not be surprised if the appetite for any re-construction has actually diminished.

As for the LNS panel being terminated, there is more chance of my getting to fly a Mosquito than of that happening. What the authorities do with the final report is an open question.

Patience, Oldgold, Der Tag is nigh.

View Comment

gsrx1Posted on10:44 am - Sep 29, 2012

Danish Pastry says:

September 29, 2012 at 10:34

Well, i just hope the crunch questions are asked.

My choices are…. Firstly, who silenced you and why? Secondly, what have you done with that old gentleman’s £120?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:52 am - Sep 29, 2012

Just to pull together some earlier posts and look at things from the laymans point of view.

We know that Bill Millar and Dave King have spoken about a ‘quantum’ 🙂 of £30m to keep the good ship T’Rangers afloat. (King I wouldn’t trust but what is in it for Bill Millar to come out with those figures).

Craig Whyte talked about a £10m black hole in the accounts and we know just to keep moving he held back £14m of PAYE, NI and VAT in a period of eight months from taking over May 2011 to administration Feb 2012 AND THIS INCLUDED A CLOSED SEASON.

We also know that despite an ‘attempt’ at cost cutting through a temporary reduction in players wages that Duff & Duffer ran up a £4m trading loss from Feb 14 to the end of June. So lets just call it £1m a month.

So what has changed?
The wage bill may well have been cut but as the current squad, and lets not forget, the backroom staff will all be on their full TUPED deals – how did this compare with reduced salary bill (albeit for a larger squad) negotiated by Duff & Duffer?
Season ticket sales and pay at the door have remained high, however all at reduced prices and possibly with a few more complimentaries being dished out that previous. There also seems to be talk of more kids attending which could further reduce the income.

For a bag of a fag packet calculation lets say you have a crown of 40k
Lets put a value of a bum on a seat of £20 per head for full price SPL.
Thats £800k per game
However we are talkinig Div 3 now so the value per bottom will be less
At £15 thats a loss on last year per game of £200k
At £10k thats a loss on last year per game of £400k.

It may be division three but you still have the same running costs for home games at Ibrox and the cost of running Murray Park. You still have to pay the same costs to get to away matches but please please tell me they have cut out the 5 star hotels!!

Yet we know that Whyte and Duff and Duffer still managed to loose between one and two million a month while receiving ticket income based on full SPL prices, TV monies and bits of Euro Cash.

Therefore on the Duff & Duffer performance alone, to break even T’Rangers have to reduce costs by around a million a month or increase revenue by the same amount.

From the announcement of investors (still no confirmation of Mike Ashleys Million or that Ally took up the offer of 4.5%) on 24 August it looks like 10% of the club is worth around £1m. Therefore maximum cash in £10m but only around £4m given that only 5 parties were mentioned in dispatches.

Arif Naqvi 18% (£2m mentioned in dispatches)
Imran Ahmad and Richard Hughes, from Zeus Capital, 9.8% each,
Ian Hart 1.3%

One has to assume that revenue is down at the gates
The Sports Direct deal taking over from JJB will be at best the same deal but most likely less.
TV money is down (are they even getting anything?)
Prize money on offer will be down if they do win anything.
No Euro money available
Given Squad size and injuries no one is going to be sold anytime soon.
There appears to be no new major money coming in via wealthy investors, so the money was put in at the time of sale must be getting burned.

As a newco I assume they won’t have a good line of credit, so no overdraft from Mr Banker.

Yet at the same time we have talk of hotels, cancer centres, buying office blocks of SDM, the setting up of worldwide football academies. -THESE THINGS CALL COST MONEY- DOH!

Oh and let’s not forget the potential for numerous legal bills for all the people they want to challenge, sue, boycott etc etc.

As far as I can see T’Rangers future appears to be hanging on the unknown ‘quantum’ of the current wage bill and what can be raised through a share issue. A share issue that, based on new rumours, may not even see the light of day on a recognised and reputable exchange thus potentially eliminating interest from outside investors – if indeed they actually want to get involved with a struggling Scottish Div 3 team.

Now Celtic’s share issue to become a Plc was according to Wiki Britains most successful football share isse at £14m and I am sure Rangers fans thry an trump that but how long will it take for that money to be burned given the aforementioed grandious plans and the need to provide a return to the existing investors and allow Green to exit stage left.

As I said this is the laymans back of a fag packet view but as far as I can see it doesn’t look good.

More than happy to be put right by anyone with more experience in such matters who thinks they can come up with a plan on how the whole thing will sort itself out.

View Comment

doontheslopePosted on11:10 am - Sep 29, 2012

On League restructuring:

The Professional Game Board, chaired by Rod Petrie, met last week and issued a statement about their ongoing discussions on league restructuring. Their statement appeared on the SFA website 24 hours after the ‘ghost’ statement from the SFA was supposed to appear.

I read the statement which appeared to simply say that discussions were ongoing. I didnt see anything which was noteworthy. However, that statement has now disappeared off the website. Why?

Congrats to Tam Cowan on ripping Sally a new one. Having worked on the show for a number of years and having guested on the show, I recall after one particularly venomous Celtic/Rangers game the ‘eject caller’ button was used frequently. I could hear the calls through my earphones but they never got as far as the public ear. They were frightening.

After the show, we wanted to go for a pint. I suggested that we go into town. Tam and Stuart thought it was the funniest comment of the day!! We retired to a hotel across from the BBC where the chances of having our heads kicked in was slimmer.

Make no mistake, Tam’s piece in the Daily Rec today is a brave piece of writing. Well done, T!

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on11:12 am - Sep 29, 2012

TSFM @ 09:39

I’m glad your better nature restored Oldgold, for the time being anyway
Perhaps he could be renamed Comedygold, as that is what most of posts are 😉

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on11:37 am - Sep 29, 2012

New blog up by BRTH

View Comment

BartinMainPosted on1:05 pm - Sep 29, 2012

If the news is true about Corsica, it is very sad.


View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:18 pm - Sep 29, 2012

A Thumbs Down blitz the other night, followed by a fruitless, derogatory trolling attempt by davis58 – quickly followed by the reappearance of our old ‘friend’ oldgold…

Great stuff and popcorn is still on standby!

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on2:43 pm - Sep 29, 2012

timtim 28 Sptember 12:12

Another possible entry for the SFM lexicon; “clumbany”. I thought this a deiberate misspelling inserted into timtim’s very tidy piece of writing.

Clumbany describes the series of interpretations that can be placed upon the nature of a an association football club depending on which judicial process is regarding it.

I take Angus’ point that LNS will use his SPL interpretation to govern his proceedings but I feel HirsuitPursuite’s pursuance of the arguments reached such a pitch that even Charles Green was getting confused.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on2:49 pm - Sep 29, 2012

Horrible news about Corsica if true.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on9:33 pm - Sep 29, 2012

I’ve just been reflecting on the information, provided by Corsica’s colleague on the ‘Corsica’ page, about the other bids that were made for RFC(IA) but dismissed out-of-hand by D&P.

Perhaps the bidders have passed details to Lord Hodge, who would surely be interested in anything that might be relevant to D&P’s functioning as Administrators.

This extra dimension might be contributing to the delay in dealing with D&P’s report ( rather than any deliberate dragging of feet).

View Comment

goosyPosted on9:58 pm - Sep 29, 2012

duplesis says:
September 29, 2012 at 02:09

@goosygoosy at 23:44
It remains possible of course that Whyte or Ticketus are somewhere in the background, but D&P didn’t need the consent of the floating charge holder to transfer the assets from RFC2012(IA) – para 70 and 113 of schedule B1 give them that power.
The FC holder could’ve challenged such a sale/transfer in the court by virtue of para 74 (from memory) but didn’t.
Perhaps we have different starting points in assessing what transpired between April 2011and
Sept 2012
My starting point is that all the key players are out and out Spivs in the Craig Whyte mould. By that I mean guys who exploit company law for gain. Amoral people with no qualms about cheating legitimate Creditors and causing misery to thousands of RFC and Sevco fans. When you assume these guys are Spivs working together to exploit company law then everything falls into place.
Anyone who believes these guys are not Spivs are bound to see the RFC saga differently
For Example
The Sale of RFC Assets by D&P to Green
As one of a group of Spivs…………
Greens aim was to get control of these assets .He wanted these assets with as much legal debt as possible.
D&P`s aim was to justify selling Ibrox and MP for £2.75m and they did this by selling the assets and concurrently reducing the Creditor List by taking out CW, Ticketus, SSC and Close Leasing .The legal mechanics of how D&P did this is a matter for the lawyers
Why did Green want assets with a massive debt?
Three reasons
1. Green will argue( if challenged) that he had no choice but to accept this debt as the price of a cheap deal By paying £2.75m and accepting a CW/Ticketus/Close Leasing debt of around £55m Green is putting a value approaching £60m on RFC
2 When he eventually reveals this massive debt Green will be able to drain cash from the business and tell the fans it was the price of saving the club
3 A sizeable proportion of this massive debt will go to Green and his backers
Once you accept that these guys are Spivs working in cahoots the only concern thereafter is how to structure the deal to make it legal
It`s irrelevant whether Whyte`s floating charge over RFC(IA) would stand up in court if he is never going to be challenged in court by a fellow Spiv. Likewise it`s irrelevant whether creating a new Whyte fc over the assets after they have been transferred to Sevco is an unnecessary move if the fellow Spivs have agreed not to challenge it in court
Its irrelevant whether creating a new Close Leasing fc over the assets after they have been transferred to Sevco is an unnecessary move if the fellow Spivs have agreed not to challenge it in court

Its also irrelevant whether transferring the Ticketus ST obligation from RFC(IA) to Sevco plc is an unnecessary move if there is no fellow Spiv willing to challenge it in court
All that matters is whether or not it is legal


View Comment

Comments are closed.