Podcast Episode 1


RE: this mornings Royal Courts of Justice for case of …

Comment on Podcast Episode 1 by ecobhoy.

RE: this mornings Royal Courts of Justice for case of Rangers 2012 vs Collier Bristow

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m
Lawyers for “Oldco” Rangers make motion to bring “Charlotte recordings” into evidence
It will be interesting to see if this is agreed by the court. If it is it will demolish the SMSM excuse to ignore the info when it was being released and reveal them as cowards.

If the court decides it was illegally obtained I don’t think it can be allowed so it’s an interesting point.

However it opens the door wide for the SMSM to now safely carry the CF story – I won’t hold my breath btw 😆

ecobhoy Also Commented

Podcast Episode 1
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
February 25, 2014 at 10:09 am

@BRTH – Well that was well-worth waiting 12 months for 😆

Great insights into the FTTT Decision and Poon’s unchallenged dissent. From memory as well as as being scathing of the evidence she clearly ‘saw’ things as how they actually were in real life rather the contrived world created to avoid taxation.

I am sure the legal climate has changed since the two ‘Duffers’ who seemed to have gone to sleep at the original hearing as soon as HMRC declared that the ‘Trusts’ weren’t shams. The final determination of the AAM case has certainly widened the HMRC wiggle-room.

And, as I have commented frequently, the failure by ‘The Duffers’ to dismantle Poon’s Opinion and attack the legal argument she made was inexplicable to me at the time. It remains inexplicable. However the care and diligence that Poon brought to the party was invaluable and not least her observations on the appelants and their evidence.

But she also appears to have actually read the voluminous productions in the FTTT and also based her Opinion on that evidence and again there was no demurral on her conclusions by the ‘legal experts’.

The only thing that worries me about the whole issue is whether, if referred back to the FTTT, would it again require to be heard by ‘The Duffers’. That rings alarm bells in my mind as I have no faith in their legal competency as evidenced by their majority Decision which IMO has never held water.

However BRTH – depending on which way the UTT or possibly FTTT decides do you think that HMRC or the Murray camp – would continue the appeal process to a higher level. I can see HMRC being prepared to go all the way but will Murray or is the bank the one that is funding the costs which could determine the decision.

Podcast Episode 1
100BJD says:
February 25, 2014 at 8:26 am

The Laxeys……..who were introduced, complete with a non dilution share agreement

Hi BJD – I must have missed the non-dilution share agreement – can you explain further. I’m not sure if you are referring to the switch of Green shares to them to reduce the £1 they paid to the IPO price of 70p.

And how would any non-dilution agreement stand-up against Res 10 and possibly 9?

Podcast Episode 1
Bryce Curdy says:
February 25, 2014 at 8:52 am

In the event of HMRC winning the UTTT, I am absolutely determined that all honours won by the former Ibrox club should be challenged, probably via another ‘Item 12′ at Celtic’s AGM approach.

With that in mind, does anyone know which ( if any) specific SPL and SFA rules would have been broken? Would it come down again to player eligibility, and even if not, what is the risk of a Bryson get-out-clause?
Personally I’ll wait until the UTT makes its decision and on what terms and then I might be in a better position to make an informed judgement.

As to specific SFA and SPL Rules I think most people are well aware that when push comes to shove they really mean nothing in certain circumstances and as you mention when they can’t be ignbored, circumvented or a new one ‘made-up’ then there will be another ‘interpretation’produced although I think Bryson is now probably past his sell-by date.

However, in the meantime, I’m afraid I won’t be joining this particular speculation as I have enough to be getting on with on current issues like State Aid; the actual UTT Hearing evidence; Imran’s case; understanding/investigating the Sevco 5088 issues; and the unfolding drama at Ibrox and all sorts of other things that are happening right now and not several years down the line.

Always remember that any UTT decision can be appealed so we are possibly years away from any final decision there. Who knows what version of Rangers we will be on by then.

However a lot of us on here have our own little ‘obsessions’ so feel free to pursue any that float your boat and I will read them and respond if I feel I can contribute anything. It would be interesting however to hear your own views on the matters you have raised as a starting point for the area of debate you have proposed.

As to any future Resolution at Celtic’s agm perhaps it might be sensible to wait and see how the present one pans out before deciding any future moves. Personally I would be happier if the resolution you suggest were to be raised by Rangers supporters at their agm should the final decision on EBTs eventually declare them illegal.

Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
Couldn’t agree more!

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.

About the author