Podcast Episode 1

ByTrisidium

Podcast Episode 1

SFM PodcastOur First podcast features a general discussion involving our own Big Pink and Auldheid.
Since it is the first podcast there is no particular agenda save for a general chat about TSFM, the state of Scottish Football, and some few reminiscences. The chat covers a lot of ground, but establishes the ethos of the blog pretty well.

Topics discussed include FPP, Leadership, Interdependence, Scotland’s self-regard, Coaching and Nurturing of Talent, Redistribution of Income, Rangers, Forgiveness, domestic strife 🙂

The interview was conducted a couple of days before the latest round of Armageddon, when Big Pink and Auldheid felt safe and well 🙂

The link below is to the iTunes store page for our Podcasts.  If you go there, you can subscribe to the podcast (on your PC or iPhone) and new episodes will automatically be sent to you.

Since we have just been approved for a spot on iTunes, the iTunes search side of things may not work properly for a day or so.

rss podcast feed   Subscribe to RSS Feed

iTunes podcast Feed  Subscribe to iTunes Feed

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.

1,849 Comments so far

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:35 pm - Feb 17, 2014


slimshady61 says:
February 17, 2014 at 4:22 pm
We need to stick to the facts on here. The fact Charlotte’s correspondence may be relied upon in court is a big start but proves nothing at this juncture.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
Agreed – but let’s all remember that just because it is being admitted as evidence does not mean that it is correct or that the court has today said that it is the Truth (whatever that is).

All that it means is that – like other evidence, it can now be lead in court. It will (presumably) be tested. Anyone whose interests are not served by that evidence will have the opportunity to contest its veracity and to discredit it.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on4:41 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Given that the football license/membership is held by TRFC, what good would Ibrox be without a football team to play there?

as real estate goes, it has no value

would they risk the SFA/SPFL rejecting the new newco and forcing a new club to start in lower leagues?
Would they risk the fans buying in knowing that the stadium was not theirs and they were tenant slining the spivs pockets FOREVER?
Nope, makes no sense

More likely they will simply move the assets to RIFC PLC and sell TRFC for £1 to a Brogue.

TRFC owes RIFC plc £20+ M – this is the easiest way to get that money back – and at the same time, give the fans teh hope of a saviour – to which they will all buy in/be fleeced again for.

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on4:43 pm - Feb 17, 2014


My report on today’s proceedings

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/02/17/charlotte-fakes-material-ruled-admissible-28m-oldco-rangers-trial

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:55 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Castofthousands says:
February 17, 2014 at 3:39 pm
sickofitall says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:55 pm

“whit does it aw mean?”
———————————
I wouldn’t dare to hazard a guess but the following piece of incrimination on the twitter account is interesting. Not just because it draws in Doncaster, though that in itself is remarkable but the inclusion of Rod McKenzie in the email trail. Wasn’t he the guy that failed to ask the obvious questions at the LNS tribunal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151580990/Phone-Calls
=====================================================
Going on my memory from the time that CF first revealed the email in question and other documentation was this not when the pros and cons of a pre-pack admin was being investigated and MRC partners/employees – before MRC was bought by D&P – were involved in providing various types of assistance/advice to CW.

However I would tend to be careful about the use of the word ‘incrimination’ wrt Rod McKenzie because I assume that what was happening, as alluded to in the emails, was that a lawyer to lawyer conversation was going on between Withey and McKenzie who were respectively representing CW and the SPL.

The purpose would be to see what the SPL was prepared to accept/demand in terms of a penalty against Rangers dependant on various possible financial outcomes. The mechanism keeps the principals at arm’s length and coming under ‘legal advice’ would also be privileged info. A sensitive subject but nothing neccessarily untoward in the lawyers’ role in having the discussions in the wider interests of Scottish Football.

I am not going to bat for McKenzie as I have severly criticised his performance and that of the SPL’s whole legal team at LNS but with the caveat that we don’t know what instructions his client issued to them which may well have constrained their performance.

The obvious answer in these situations is often either not the correct one or one that actually doesn’t reveal all the unknown and non-public negotiations and deals being done quite legally and ethically in a professional sense.

An ordinary football fan would probably be quite right in saying the whole thing stinks but that’s why lawyers are paid big bucks because they provide a very deniable buffer zone when required.

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on4:58 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Now I understand.
The mysterious 5 way agreement had nothing to do with Rangers Oldco/Newco etc,
the 5 involved were :-
David Murray,
Charles Green,
Craig Whyte,
Duff and Phelps
and the SFA.

It’s just like Doctor Who, but they keep changing the Doctor and the dates of his “reincarnation”
When are we going into administration? Four months from now – we’ve still got a lot of paperwork to shred.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on5:00 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman says:

February 17, 2014 at 4:43 pm

My report on today’s proceedings

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/02/17/charlotte-fakes-material-ruled-admissible-28m-oldco-rangers-trial
=====================================================================

Well written James.
Is Thomo off on it now also?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:06 pm - Feb 17, 2014


I have to ask. When James and Ian met up at the court, was it a simple acknowldegement on a chance meeting or was there a sign – a pencil V on the table quickly wiped away by the waiter or tapping out beethoven’s fifth (morse for V) on the bartop like the men in berets in Paris circa 1943.

Gawd, it wasn’t in the handshake was it ? 😯

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:07 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman says:
February 17, 2014 at 4:43 pm

My report on today’s proceedings
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/02/17/charlotte-fakes-material-ruled-admissible-28m-oldco-rangers-trial
========================================================
Nice and tight and covers all the important bases. Also factual which is of course what we would expect from a professional court reporter as opposed to a lamb-munching member of the SMSM waiting on the Press Release from you know who :slamb: 😎

Well done James – a pleasure to read ❗

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:09 pm - Feb 17, 2014


ianagain says:

February 17, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Great to have someone at the proceedings who can comment, not just on what was said, but also on how it was said. Great piece of work by you and James Doleman too. There’s more to this internet bampotery than meets the eye 😉 Well done guys. They fact that you, and others like John Clarke, are prepared to take the time to go to these hearings and to share your experiences with us is just pure dead brilliant.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:11 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Smugas says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm

I have to ask. When James and Ian met up at the court, was it a simple acknowldegement on a chance meeting or was there a sign – a pencil V on the table quickly wiped away by the waiter or tapping out beethoven’s fifth (morse for V) on the bartop like the men in berets in Paris circa 1943. Gawd, it wasn’t in the handshake was it ? 😯
=================================
When Harry Met Sally jumped into my head and then a vision of Green wearing a beret at his French Chateau 🙂

I’ll need to get out more often 🙄

View Comment

twopandaPosted on5:18 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Ian + James!
Sterling
Just Brill

View Comment

ianagainPosted on5:20 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Smugas says:

February 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm

2

0

Rate This

Quantcast

I have to ask. When James and Ian met up at the court, was it a simple acknowldegement on a chance meeting or was there a sign – a pencil V on the table quickly wiped away by the waiter or tapping out beethoven’s fifth (morse for V) on the bartop like the men in berets in Paris circa 1943.

Gawd, it wasn’t in the handshake was it ? 😯
==================================================================
Er no it was TSFM I presume. Followed by James giving me a quick debriefing afterwards on what Id missed and thanks for that James.
Given we were the only 2 there not looking like we pocketed 50k plus a year (and that includes the junior council) it was sort of obvious.

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on5:27 pm - Feb 17, 2014


“Smugas says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm
4 0 Rate This

I have to ask. When James and Ian met up at the court, was it a simple acknowldegement on a chance meeting or was there a sign”

The only two people in court not wearing £500 suits.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:29 pm - Feb 17, 2014


£500 between you? 😆

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on5:37 pm - Feb 17, 2014


can anyone tell me what happens if RFC win the case against Collyer Bristow?

what is this case about exactly?

my understanding was that they claim CB made false representations that denied them the chance to take up another offer (i.e. Paul Murrays fanciful notion) of buying the club

the best i can see is that RFC have to refund teh money they DID get and are then free to get it from somewhere else – which they won’t

NO?

View Comment

ianagainPosted on5:39 pm - Feb 17, 2014


One aside James. We spoke about this. The “3rd Party” that Phillips said “might” have up to recently have been a party to the suit (which also prevented early resolution). Any thoughts on who that may have been?

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on5:55 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Wouldn’t like to speculate Ian.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on5:58 pm - Feb 17, 2014


While the police lifting objections to the use of the CF tapes in a civil case may spur the SMSM to refer to and/or publish excerpts I wouldn’t bet on it.

We don’t know and the SMSM won’t know which tapes /docs will be used in the court case until January 2015

We don’t know why the SMSM have shied away from this source and while Leveson and possible criminal proceedings have been cited as reasons for their reluctance we should not forget that fear of a libel action may have caused a reluctance to use/publish.

Would you be comfortable that all the CF docs/tapes are genuine. Would you want to rely on CW coming good for you in a libel trial!

I’m no saying that this is another damp squib….but it may well be a year on before the press feels safe to use this source and only those elements that are revealed in open court.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on5:58 pm - Feb 17, 2014


The only two people in court not wearing £500 suits
&&&&&&&
Probably the only two people in court who had paid for their suits!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on6:02 pm - Feb 17, 2014


For those of footy mind:
In terms of lineups

BDO went
2 (known strike force) – 3 – 4

While Collyers a more conventional
1 (highly paid striker}-2-3

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on6:05 pm - Feb 17, 2014


One quick point in relation parttimearab’s. There is no jury in this trial therefore the material can be reported without any chance of prejudice, judges being seen as above being influenced.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on6:13 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Many thanks for your sterling work James. Can I ask was there a lot of reporters there and did you recognise anyone?

View Comment

MartinPosted on6:18 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Interesting events at the Royal Courts of Justice today. (thanks to James Doleman for keeping us informed)

The Charlotte Fakes material it seems can be brought forward as evidence, apparently all parties accept this.

This of course does not mean that the information CF provided cannot be challenged, if anything it means that it certainly will be.

No one was prepared to claim that the material was obtained illegally and seek to block its use. (I’m not a lawyer so I can’t stand up the practicalities or likelihood of success of such a move).

This suggests that all parties have the evidence provided via Twitter and feel that they can either support or undermine it with better more direct evidence.

It is interesting to note that for a time a least the closing down of one or more of the Charlotte accounts was attributed to legal intervention.

Perhaps Charlotte was indeed closed down in this way or maybe there was a simple and understandable loss of nerve. An advanced flair for the dramatic might also provide an explanation. We may never know for sure.

If it was a legal requirement there is no reason to assume that it was in any way connected to the case at the Royal Courts of Justice today.

The MSM have been reluctant to talk about Charlotte but it seems she will have her day in court. We will have to wait some time for the denouement so there are no excuses for reporters turning up with blunt pencils.

I’m led to believe that at the mention of the Charlotte Fakes material in court there were wry smiles all round.

I wonder who will be smiling when the matter is concluded.

View Comment

futbolPosted on6:30 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Very recently in my work role I’ve bore the brunt of a media outlet printing outright lies and the misrepresentation of various facts.

The result of this is that a number of years work to change public perception is now seriously damaged.

The article in question was littered with a handful of facts in order for it to gain some legitimacy and inflict as much damage as possible.

Whilst unrelated to the round-ball game it’s struck a chord with me in light of the re-emergence of the Charlotte questions.

How is it that headlines bearing no resemblance to the story they link to can be printed without any semblance of fact yet information with clear links to well-known events are ignored?

I’m not asking for the regurgitation of the information simply, as many others have outlined before, the use of the information in asking questions?

In my own example a similar tact was taken – no questions asked in order to find the truth, instead quotes requested so that they can be misused to back up the original negative intent, strategically placed as if to give the stamp of approval to the lies that precede them.

Is anyone on here a journalist? I’m truly stumped and despondent over what would lead to this sort of behaviour. Is there no moral compass whatsoever or is there just an agenda of destruction, of anything and everything?

And if so, why bury the Charlotte stuff?

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on6:56 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Regarding the proceedings in court today.

The late Paul McConville blogged about this matter at some length. It is very worth revisiting his views at this time. Apart from anything else, it will help us remember what we are missing in terms of his analysis.

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on7:06 pm - Feb 17, 2014


from the sons of strewth!

“Coming from the SOS site:

King will be seated on the Board for the start of the new season…..

They are holding out for 5 million from him, which he has so far refused…

Make of that what you want!”

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:10 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Magic. That’s through to January sorted then!

View Comment

Palacio67Posted on7:21 pm - Feb 17, 2014


sickofitall says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:06 pm
4 0 Rate This

from the sons of strewth!

“Coming from the SOS site:

King will be seated on the Board for the start of the new season…..

They are holding out for 5 million from him, which he has so far refused…

Make of that what you want!”

———————————————
Can King be allowed onto the board, with him being director when RFC1872NIL suffered an insolvency. Thought that was not allowed, and would this not affect the ‘pheonix’ angle of things?

View Comment

ianagainPosted on7:40 pm - Feb 17, 2014


As a wee light note towards the end after the Charlotte agreement as it were the judge asked of the “8” pieces of audio what length it was in audio terms and how long to transcribe. In addition if all 8 included 8 bits that required redaction. (IE He wanted to know how long a transcript would be and how useful (would it be in fact should it be shredded by cuts).
Much harrumphing between said 2 strikers and the 4 at the back.
2 and a half hours worth and no idea was the answer.
Mr Phillips went on to amuse the court by assuring the judge that he did not intend to use extracts of Craigy giving his expletive ridden opinion of Ally as a football manager as this was not relevant.
Much ha ha ha all round, surprisingly including the judge. 😆

I felt like a wee schoolboy when the BDO guys reckoned on 2 months to transcribe everything.
Please mister we’ve done it already I thought but kept my hand down.

James reminded me and this is really the end point on this. all the costs of todays hearings are bourne by the original creditors. The ambulance etc etc. Entertaining but that’s where the money goes.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on7:49 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Palacio67 says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:21 pm
3 0 Rate This

sickofitall says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:06 pm
4 0 Rate This

from the sons of strewth!

“Coming from the SOS site:

King will be seated on the Board for the start of the new season…..

They are holding out for 5 million from him, which he has so far refused…

Make of that what you want!”

———————————————
Can King be allowed onto the board, with him being director when RFC1872NIL suffered an insolvency. Though that was not allowed, and would this not affect the ‘pheonix’ angle of things?

————————————————–

According to the rules….no

Will the SFA enforce them? hahahaha.

I guess the way around it is for him to buy his place on the RIFC board.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on7:57 pm - Feb 17, 2014


futbol says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm

Is anyone on here a journalist? I’m truly stumped and despondent over what would lead to this sort of behaviour. Is there no moral compass whatsoever or is there just an agenda of destruction, of anything and everything?
——

I was involved briefly in that side of life in the past, in the London-based tabloid media. There is no moral compass. Journalists, subs and editors do not care what effect their printed word will have on the people concerned. They just don’t care – as long as it gets past legal. Legal often work on the principle that the subject will be pissed off, but will not want the extreme hassle of taking the paper to court. And they’re usually right. Journos work to very tight deadlines, and so not have time to care when there are column inches to fill. Hence the common presence of unedited press releases in your news.

Also – bad news sells. Particularly on the TV news this has become much more apprent recently – they’re always looking for the worst angle: most people killed, homeless, without power, worst injuries to children, most despicable case an interviewee has ever heard of, etc. It’s getting tiring.

I have also been the subject of a front-page story in our local Evening paper, wherein I was directly quoted as saying things which I simply didn’t, and would never have said. This caused me no end of grief at the time. The journalist in question said he was sorry, but he thought that’s what I’d meant.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on8:00 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James Doleman says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:27 pm

The only two people in court not wearing £500 suits.”

This reminds me of the late Alan Clarke MP who, when told that New York gangster John Gotti’s suits cost $2,000 each, remarked “Gosh, I didn’t know you could buy them that cheap”

Well done anyway James – solid and informative reporting. One is left asking though if indeed the judges are above influence, why not allow tweeting from the court? Doesn’t make sense

54 to 140 (characters)

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:05 pm - Feb 17, 2014


I’m a bit puzzled tonight. Some Rangers fans recently made allegations to the European Commission that Celtic benefited unfairly from land deals with the state. Their case did not appear to be backed up by any informed legal minds. Yet the media fell over themselves to report it, with the BBC leading from the front. Now an English Court, with all the legal minds and regulations that govern it, has decided that the Charlotte material can be heard in court. This material has the potential to be extremely damaging to Rangers and the SFA, yet the media, even with the blessing of a court, don’t even want to report the fact the material will be heard.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:07 pm - Feb 17, 2014


http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/sticking-it-to-us/

A great post as usual from James Forrest.

This topic generated some comment on here a few days ago, but seems to have been lost sight of in the “fog of war”. I would repeat my earlier request to everyone on here who cares about Scottish football to contact their own club, and ask them what’s going on here, and specifically, where does their club stand on the matter.

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on8:07 pm - Feb 17, 2014


“, why not allow tweeting from the court? Doesn’t make sense”

No idea, can so it in criminal jury trials at the Old Bailey but not in a civil case in front of a judge.

Just means you have to keep leaving the court to tweet.

View Comment

alexander276Posted on8:19 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Re the onfieldsofgreen piece. My contribution and understanding are from beneath the salt, but surely the forthcoming The Rangers deduction is 15 points? Why should this club be penalised as if it is a second offence? I would subscribe to this even if this alone permitted their ‘promotion’. The principle is more important than the consequence.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:50 pm - Feb 17, 2014


upthehoops says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm

I’m a bit puzzled tonight. Some Rangers fans recently made allegations to the European Commission that Celtic benefited unfairly from land deals with the state. Their case did not appear to be backed up by any informed legal minds.
——————————————————————————————
I have never actually seen the detail of the State Aid case presented to the EC and, possibly more importantly, the status of the party or parties making the complaint.

I have contacted the EC Competition Commissioner’s office twice since early January querying if the complainant in this case qualifies as a ‘party’ under the relevant legislation and regulations. So far just an acknowledgement of my emails.

It has been reported that any complaint made to the EC must be considered with a view as to whether it should be investigated and this is apparently the stage that the case involving Celtic and GCC is at with evidence sought and supplied to the EC by Celtic and GCC.

I have requested permission to become a ‘party’ to the current process as I believe that a Celtic fan should have equal rights under the legislation to present a case, albeit contrary, as a Rangers fan but have yet to receive a response to this from the EC.

It might be that a relevant party qualification only comes in to play if the EC decides to move to a formal investigation but I have to confess that I failed in trying to find my way through the morass of EC Regulation which might or might not apply to that specific point.

However I will soldier on. In basic terms what I have seen of the work of the Bear ‘Experts’ involved verges on the hilarious and it is quite pitiful so see how Rangers supporters are being deflected by a PR-driven exercise IMO to keep them from demanding answers from the current Board on the financial problems at Ibrox.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:01 pm - Feb 17, 2014


alexander276 says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:19 pm
10 0 Rate This

Re the onfieldsofgreen piece. My contribution and understanding are from beneath the salt, but surely the forthcoming The Rangers deduction is 15 points? Why should this club be penalised as if it is a second offence? I would subscribe to this even if this alone permitted their ‘promotion’. The principle is more important than the consequence.

===========================================================

I’m not sure if its you or me thats misunderstanding this alexander? I understood that the new rule would prevent a club from overspending, going into administration and then achieving promotion anyway. And that rule would have been regardless of first, second or third offence.
And rightly so – the alternative is to create a situation where cheating is ok IF you make sure you cheat enough – do it on an industrial scale and no one will touch you.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:08 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Christyboy says:

February 17, 2014 at 6:13 pm

Many thanks for your sterling work James. Can I ask was there a lot of reporters there and did you recognise anyone?
———————————————————————————————————————————–
Not wishing to pre empt James.
HE was the only journo there.
Plenty of scribblers from the various camps with boxes at their feet and company notepaper (sure sign). the great and good dont always remember how clever they were it seems and need the kiddies to remind them.

I myself was representing you bampots and getiing info from James

View Comment

scottcPosted on9:13 pm - Feb 17, 2014


ianagain says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm
12 1 Rate This

One aside James. We spoke about this. The “3rd Party” that Phillips said “might” have up to recently have been a party to the suit (which also prevented early resolution). Any thoughts on who that may have been?

Would that not be Gary Withey? He was originally wanting to be a seperate party in the case. No idea why though; maybe to ‘protect’ his erstwhile employers

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/gary-witheys-hokey-cokey-delays-rangers-claim-who-benefits/#more-2277

View Comment

justshateredPosted on9:13 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Another interesting day for ‘The Rangers’.
Now all this talk of an MVL surely the key word here is ‘LIQUIDATION’.

Surely it’s back to the bottom division?
It is going to require the SPFL board to ratify the transfer of membership yet again otherwise they will be unable to fulfil their fixtures..
Everyone better get ready to withhold season ticket money again this year.

We are now so far away from chartered territory we are actually on a different planet.
If this latest scam is true somebody on that SPFL board better grow a pair and quickly otherwise Hampden is going to resemble the Bastille.
Was that place not stormed and pulled down brick by brick?

I fear another Darwin moment coming on when evolution yet again is denied in an attempt to breath life into a dinosaur.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:25 pm - Feb 17, 2014


scottc says:

February 17, 2014 at 9:13 pm

0

0

Rate This

Quantcast

ianagain says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm
12 1 Rate This

One aside James. We spoke about this. The “3rd Party” that Phillips said “might” have up to recently have been a party to the suit (which also prevented early resolution). Any thoughts on who that may have been?

Would that not be Gary Withey? He was originally wanting to be a seperate party in the case. No idea why though; maybe to ‘protect’ his erstwhile employers
==========================================================
On final deliberations there was a discussion of “parties behind the Chinese screen” and what they could or could not see from the Collyers side. viz a viz Charlotte and other evidence.
Maybe Withey maybe not.
Come back in 2015 and find out.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on10:03 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Ianagain, thanks for the reply and for your help today on the updates. By the time this case comes round next year, what else will have transpired ? A third admin, another year of fudging and mis-direction, another year of preparing the ground for a bankrupt club to get to premier league status at the expense of fairness whilst they and the governing bodies break and make up rules as they go along ? This needs to stop right now !!!

View Comment

iamacantPosted on10:12 pm - Feb 17, 2014


17 Feb 2014 21:48 By Craig McQueen

Secret tapes of former Rangers owners Craig Whyte and Charles Green set to be used as evidence in £28m court case

A JUDGE has ruled that the recordings along with a series of documents relating to the club which were leaked online, will be able to be used as evidence in court.

SECRET recordings of Craig Whyte and Charles Green discussing the takeover of Rangers are to be used as evidence in a £28million court case, it was reported today.

The club’s liquidators BDO began legal action last year against Whyte’s lawyers Collyer Bristow, claiming the law firm was partially responsible for the downfall of the club, negligence and breach of trust. Collyer Bristow has denied the allegations.

In a pre-trial hearing held yesterday in London’s Royal Courts of Justice, judge Mr Justice Newey ruled that recordings of Whyte in conversation with others involved in the takeover were admissible as evidence.

The recordings along with a series of documents relating to the club were leaked on the anonymous Twitter account “Charlotte Fakes.”

As well as tapes of Whyte discussing his Rangers takeover, the account published e-mails between the club and their PR advisors, and documents concerning the club’s finances.

The leaks led to an online debate with fans discussing who was behind the leaks and whether the documents were genuine.

Cyril Kinsky QC, representing Collyer Bristow, told the court there were concerns that the recordings may have been illegally obtained, but he claimed that they had been circulated widely on internet forums and so were no longer confidential.

Last year Police Scotland said they were investigating the source of the leaks, but Mark Phillips QC, representing BDO, told the court that police last week dropped their objections to the recordings being used as evidence and that Craig Whyte himself had no issue with them being heard.

Philips argued that transcripts of the recordings should be partially redacted to remove references to confidential legal advice received by Whyte, and Mr Justice Newey agreed that edited transcripts should be made available.

The case is due to be heard next January.
———————————————————————————————————–
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/secret-tapes-former-rangers-owners-3156806

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:26 pm - Feb 17, 2014


iamacant says:

February 17, 2014 at 10:12 pm

17 Feb 2014 21:48 By Craig McQueen
************************************************
Who was not there.
churnalisms amazing isn’t it

View Comment

iamacantPosted on10:30 pm - Feb 17, 2014


ianagain says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:26 pm

iamacant says:

February 17, 2014 at 10:12 pm

17 Feb 2014 21:48 By Craig McQueen
************************************************
Who was not there.
churnalisms amazing isn’t it
—————————————————————————————

I don’t think you or James were there either as the Record are reporting the pre trial hearing was “yesterday” 😀

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on10:35 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Now that CF has been admitted into evidence will there be an acknowledgement of the content? Not just tapes were purged by jack, also e-mail and correspondence. No doubt some ‘bampot’ screen dumped the whole kit & caboodle and will be uploading it again.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:40 pm - Feb 17, 2014


davythelotion says:

February 17, 2014 at 10:35 pm

0

0

Rate This

Quantcast

Now that CF has been admitted into evidence will there be an acknowledgement of the content? Not just tapes were purged by jack, also e-mail and correspondence. No doubt some ‘bampot’ screen dumped the whole kit & caboodle and will be uploading it again
=======================================================================
Many emails as well as tapes were referred to and quoted as were news TV stories.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:41 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James

The valuation of the squad? I missed that bit.

View Comment

fergussingsthebluesPosted on11:00 pm - Feb 17, 2014


Waiting till Jan 2015 for a verdict, or sorry, start of the procedure?

Aye Right!!

That’s 11 months away!

Someone might have said “A weeks a long time in Scottish Fitba'”

Why are we concentrating on a case that is going to be heard in 11 months time?

Some of the CF stuff looks genuine, some of it looks like propaganda. I’m not sure what to believe of it, but I am sure that many Lawyers are going to make a good living out of it over the next 11 months now!

I think we should start looking at the short term here rather than to next January!

Just a thought!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:10 pm - Feb 17, 2014


fergussingstheblues says:

February 17, 2014 at 11:00 pm
Waiting till Jan 2015 for a verdict, or sorry, start of the procedure?

Aye Right!!

That’s 11 months away

============================================
It certainly is or more.
As I realised today that’s the way it works.
Everyone (if you have the money) Gets their day.
Its the law.
Tough.

View Comment

Bill JacksonPosted on11:13 pm - Feb 17, 2014


James

Many thanks for the updates today.

Just out of interest …. was Charles Green’s permission sought/given ref the Charlotte Fakes stuff?

Given that the CF tapes appear to very clearly implicate him in relation to CWs claim of fraud, interested to know his response (if any) to CF info being admissable?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:36 pm - Feb 17, 2014


justshatered says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:13 pm
‘…..We are now so far away from chartered territory we are actually on a different planet..’
————
Yes.
A most extraordinary journey, which has occasioned:

Initially, mild raising of our eyebrows at the early reports of RFC’s financial difficulties

Incredulity and anger at the scale and cause of those difficulties

Disbelief ( and perhaps some mockery in some quarters) at the absurdity of the £1 sale to the ‘wealth off the radar’ CW
Astonishment at the car crash of Administration ( and what an Administration by Duff and Duffer! ( who claims the copyright?)
gob-smackedness at the descent into- and death by- Liquidation
the suspicion that certain EBT beneficiaries were in positions influential enough to engineer the iniquitous 5-way agreement
total amazement at the LNS findings
the certainty that the :slamb: brigade were happy to aid and abet that perversion of all that is meant by sporting integrity
the ridiculous and continuing assertion that the legitimate honours and titles of RFC(IL) could be ‘bought ‘ by a brand new club

And which now appears to be bringing us to a very dark place- two conspiracies inter-twined , a business conspiracy to cheat the taxman and every other creditor, and a conspiracy with the football authorities to make sure that no serious penalty would be suffered.
Who is it that’s on a 4 week holiday just now?

View Comment

twopandaPosted on11:39 pm - Feb 17, 2014


It’s a matter of public record that a lot of material ended up in shredders [ even that shredder companies were creditors] and a lot of electronic data went to email heaven.

Speculating that the admission of material related to the scarcity of traceable material. If that is so allowing this `new` material to be considered allows context and timeline to be prepared [transcribed] and any public hard facts interwoven or links established to develop a credible version of events.

Before we get too excited the scope of the action appears limited to the `take-over` period.
How all that works out will be determined by the Court in question in due course.

However, the `admissibility` of this material in a legal sense may spawn further additional action for events further down the line not related to the liquidators remit or the current case. If that is so – then further actions could be brought in separate claims. Methinks this could be the game plan or gambit to crystallise admissible evidence for future actions. It`s possible today was a watershed in this shambles.

View Comment

PlugholePosted on11:40 pm - Feb 17, 2014


futbol says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm

Moral compass?
They are sociopaths, without empathy, compassion or morality. TSFM is one of a growing number of sites dedicated to exposing their lies and crimes..
They won’t win. We will. ❗

View Comment

fergussingsthebluesPosted on11:56 pm - Feb 17, 2014


ianagain says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:10 pm
fergussingstheblues says:

February 17, 2014 at 11:00 pm
Waiting till Jan 2015 for a verdict, or sorry, start of the procedure?

Aye Right!!

That’s 11 months away

============================================
It certainly is or more.
As I realised today that’s the way it works.
Everyone (if you have the money) Gets their day.
Its the law.
Tough.
============================================

Ianagain,

It’s not Tough, it’s sad, The Law, that is! 🙁

However, JC @11:36, spot on!

Absolutely brilliant description of the history and present situation of this farce so far.

View Comment

MercDocPosted on12:29 am - Feb 18, 2014


On RM, everything is going back to the way it was. After today’s revelations, all contracts are null and void, DM returns as King, Rangers are minted, Sameco! I took it once your liquidated, your a Norwegian Blue. I’m I wrong

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:47 am - Feb 18, 2014


twopanda says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:39 pm
‘….It`s possible today was a watershed in this shambles.’
————
Yes.
There is now a legitimate ,’reportable’ public focus on the possibility that our Football Authorities were corrupt, in aid of a corrupt club, with some now ‘admissible’ evidence to be tested in court.

A wider question may be whether our politicos and, God save the mark, some of those against whom ‘murmuring’ used to be an offence, may have facilitated that corruption.

Whether that question will be explored……..

View Comment

whispererPosted on1:02 am - Feb 18, 2014


Meanwhile in bearsden

Jackal and the day late rhebel stirring again

Absolutely Hilarious … !

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:17 am - Feb 18, 2014


And, before I yield to the insistent demands of Mrs C, the nature of which I will leave to your imagination, I have to say this has been a most instructive , but entertaining, evening on the blog, with especial thanks due to JD and ianagain.
Our own Woodward and Bernstein .
Leaving second-hand ,second rate guys like Craig McQueen in a very poor second place.
Well done, guys.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on2:49 am - Feb 18, 2014


davythelotion says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:35 pm

” No doubt some ‘bampot’ screen dumped the whole kit & caboodle and will be uploading it again.”
———————————
I know for sure that a lot of documents are sitting on hard drives all around the globe. I think I may be able to access a nice cleaned up and joined up bit of audio involving some of the main actors. Interesting times. Not sure I can compromise TSFM by acquiring access and posting it but any unfolding narrative can likely be checked against the documents that have come into the public domain.

View Comment

TallBoy PoppyPosted on3:08 am - Feb 18, 2014


sickofitall says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:57 pm
————————————————————————————————
Just a small correction, but that post is attributed to Busa Bhoy, not Nisi Dominus Frustra.
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=12790916&t=8837773

Sorry to be so picky but it’s important to be accurate – reputations, lawyers and all that stuff 😉

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on7:40 am - Feb 18, 2014


TallBoy Poppy says:
February 18, 2014 at 3:08 am
%%%%%%%%
A poster on RM used the second para as the basis for a thread about corruption in Scottish football.
Was he:
Responsible for a wide ranging debate on ethics in sport
A search for the truth
Called a &%*-+%£££!!!!! ©¢$$√π√π±•!!!!! ?
Take a wild guess 🙂

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:07 am - Feb 18, 2014


https://soundcloud.com/peterjung1/charlotte-fakeover-charles-1

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:08 am - Feb 18, 2014


If it is true that RIFC are almost out of cash, to the point of struggling to meet this month’s wage bill, then isn’t it a bit strange that trading continues, and that there has been no announcement to the market? It surely can’t be the plan just to trade on until there is no money left, because at that point, an administrator would have no choice but to sack everyone and stop trading. Any administration will surely be a planned event, with enough cash left in the bank to allow the season to be completed, albeit with a squad of youngsters and Ally no doubt working for nothing for a few months.

I don’t doubt that the company’s own money is almost exhausted. So the lack of any real news from Ibrox must surely mean that someone is providing the money required to bridge the gap until the season ticket money starts to come in. Maybe the Easdales? Or are the hedge funds protecting their investment?

I wonder what has inspired Jackson’s latest piece. Is he still on message with Jack Irvine, or has he broken ranks? Could Irvine be softening up the bears for an imminent administration? I still think that administration is the only sensible option, because I can’t see any cost-cutting programme being effectively implemented otherwise. If administration wasn’t the plan, then why the 120 day review period? Around £10m will have gone out the door in those 120 days. If Wallace was serious about getting through on cost-cutting alone, without an administration, his review period would have been about 24 hours. This is just a poxy little football business, after all, not British Aerospace. All very strange.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:20 am - Feb 18, 2014


neepheid says:
February 18, 2014 at 10:08 am
1 0 Rate This

If it is true that RIFC are almost out of cash, to the point of struggling to meet this month’s wage bill, then isn’t it a bit strange that trading continues, and that there has been no announcement to the market? It surely can’t be the plan just to trade on until there is no money left, because at that point, an administrator would have no choice but to sack everyone and stop trading. Any administration will surely be a planned event, with enough cash left in the bank to allow the season to be completed, albeit with a squad of youngsters and Ally no doubt working for nothing for a few months.

I don’t doubt that the company’s own money is almost exhausted. So the lack of any real news from Ibrox must surely mean that someone is providing the money required to bridge the gap …
————–

If an Asian company supplied a short-term loan to see the initial deal through, couldn’t that same company do so again? Those three-month loans to Sevco were very Hughie-Green quiz show.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on10:36 am - Feb 18, 2014


Just noticed that the new editor of the Daily Ranger is a Dundee United supporter, and quite open about it.

Anyone spotted a change in DR reporting this month?

View Comment

TincksPosted on10:38 am - Feb 18, 2014


OT post in a way. About the problems experienced by English fans, the link below is to a (long) but serious minded article about he treatment of fans by the authorities.

The central point is of decent, honest fans being treated by the police as a problem to be dealt with and not as citizens deserving of respect and protection. I’m sure just about everyone posting on and reading TSFM will have experienced or seen dodgy policing at some point and it is sobering to reflect on just how fundamentally some of our civil liberties have been eroded in recent years.

Some of the incidents described are truly scary.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/everyones-equal-eyes-law-unless-you-are-football-fan

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:40 am - Feb 18, 2014


Like you Neepheid I’m of the temporary loan theory school – as I cannot see the advantage of any kind of event – in fact quite the opposite – the fans could turn on them prompting the institutions to ship out. The only advantage (assuming they’ve received such loans to maintain liquidity and avoid creditor action of course) is from a footballing perspective to enter Div 1 – thanks again brother Doncaster – with the proverbial clean slate and lower wage bill, not to mention the world record treble, obviously!

The current model though, with season ticket money surely dribbling in on a deferred basis this time – no-one’s going to pay up front just now you would have thought – still only gets them to Christmas, but against much stiffer opposition. I hope the model’s stress tested cos they’re going to put a helluva pressure on it!

There’s just a discomforting continuing confidence about them, clearly built on pillars of sand, that somethings going to give to their advantage. It annoys me that I can’t see what it is!

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on11:19 am - Feb 18, 2014


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/secret-tapes-former-rangers-owners-3156806

“SECRET recordings of Craig Whyte and Charles Green discussing the takeover of Rangers are to be used as evidence in a £28million court case, it was reported today.

The club’s liquidators BDO began legal action last year against Whyte’s lawyers Collyer Bristow, claiming the law firm was partially responsible for the downfall of the club, negligence and breach of trust. Collyer Bristow has denied the allegations.”

“The club’s liquidators” – Craig McQueen forgets the script and go’s off message!

View Comment

Mandrake RootPosted on11:29 am - Feb 18, 2014


@Night Terror

I did notice that the Sunday Mail had most of the back page with NL saying he might have done all he can at Celtic along with a very pro-Rangers back page piece, a double page spread outlining why FF should ditch Scotland and then another double page spread outlining why NL might be ready to quit. Five pages of negative Celtic coverage and some very pro-Rangers ‘everything is getting back to being great’ stuff. So no real change there then…

I know all the evidence points to RIFC about to run out of cash but two things bother me a bit with this. Why did they go on a high-profile, very expensive, pre-match Carnoustie bender if the pot is empty and why would GW risk getting himself stuck with a 5 year Directorship ban for taking them into admin when he’s just in the door? Surely he wouldn’t want that on his CV?

Doesn’t really add up to me but then what does with this clusterf**k?

View Comment

Sugar DaddyPosted on11:30 am - Feb 18, 2014


Beginning to wonder if JI has changed tactics. The puff pieces and stories of unremitting joy down Ibrox way have declined.

Now appearing almost weekly are stories of impending Armageddon over Govan which of course doesn’t materialise.

We’ve had the “Craig Whyte to return with bombshell to rock Scottish football”, “Keep an eye on Murray Park”, “GW is not at his desk”, and the latest “Can TRFC meet the Feb 27 wage bill?”

These stories whilst on the face of it are anti-Rangers but give the Bears some hope & bragging rights when the situation passes with no further damage. They also have the effect of diminishing the credibility of the messenger. I also wonder if Phil McG’s Ibrox source has been “burned” after some of these stories.

That TRFC have no viable business model is fact. That they are scrabbling about the pay day loan market looking for a sub has not been denied.

I’m convinced they will meet their salary payments in Feb as investors either existing or new will pony up the cash to see them to season book renewal time.

What happens after that? Well you wouldn’t have enough cash to see out next season so you would be in a position to plan for an administration at the back end of the current one wouldn’t you?

No doubt reading too much into it but if there was a shifty eyes icon…

View Comment

Carl31Posted on12:05 pm - Feb 18, 2014


neepheid says:
February 18, 2014 at 10:08 am

Neep,
I suspect that RIFC are and will be fine and no announcement to the AIM is needed, but TRFC is another matter. They will be lucky to last the next 10 days, IMO.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on12:34 pm - Feb 18, 2014


Carl31 says:
February 18, 2014 at 12:05 pm
1 0 Rate This

neepheid says:
February 18, 2014 at 10:08 am

Neep,
I suspect that RIFC are and will be fine and no announcement to the AIM is needed, but TRFC is another matter. They will be lucky to last the next 10 days, IMO.
===================
Yes, Carl, I agree that RIFC are in no danger, since all they do is hold shares in TRFC.

I’m not clear as to whether trading problems at its subsidiary would require an AIM announcement. Since TRFC represents 100% of RIFC’s assets, I would have thought so, but I have an extremely low opinion of AIM, so I don’t expect much, and am never disappointed.

Whether the next 10 days mark the end game, we’ll just have to wait and see. I never thought they would last this long, so I’m out of the forecasting game. I’m still guessing though, and my guess is that funds have been found to let them clinch the title by at least the required 15 or 25 points (Ogilvie will no doubt have liaised on their behalf to establish what the figure is). At that point, administration might be the plan.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:47 pm - Feb 18, 2014


Has anybody noticed that high level leaks out of Ibrox continued even after Whyte left?
What if
Its all part of a deliberate ploy to aid the second coming of a convicted tax dodger?
Helped by another Spiv who had absolute power in the dim and distant past
A control freak who wanted to remain in control despite selling the club?
What if
RFC have been run like a Spiv business for decades?
What if
There is bugging equipment all over Ibrox ?
If so
The mind boggles at the implications

View Comment

Leave a Reply