Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?

Avatar By

Un chapeau bleu pour Ryan! …

Comment on Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ? by mungoboy.

Un chapeau bleu pour Ryan!

mungoboy Also Commented

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
Ally J
My point exactly re the arrestment facility being pointless.
Perhaps it means you get your order but you have to wait 60/90 days before you can access your cash.
Legal Eagles still required for clarification!

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
Take the point. Re the 60/90 day waiting period. Surely that kinda defeats the purpose of going to court to freeze assets as an order becomes pointless if the company goes down the pan during such a waiting period.
Any legal eagles able to clarify?

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
Maybe Sevco would be better represented by Ann Summers!
What about this for an outcome?
Temporary ring fencing until result of share issue is known at which time back to
court to either extend the order or remove it.
Just a thought.

Recent Comments by mungoboy

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
I’m having a great day today.
Not only is it my grandson’s 2nd birthday but 2 minutes after the SC announcement, thanks to modern technology, I was aware of the decision as I sat here in sunny SW France.
Since then I’ve been humming a popular local ditty along the lines of
Allons bampots de l’internet, le jour de gloire est arrivé’
However, as others have said, also in my mind are those no longer with us to witness this day. We know who they are and they’re in our thoughts.
Anyway, cold beer beckons.
to paraphrase yet again, if Kronenbourg did weeks……… ??

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
perhaps that was before Police Scotland had a word outside.
As I said, he wasnt in court when I was there. No doubt JC will enlighten us about today.

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
I see that Señor James in his latest blog is claiming that ‘Hallowe’en Houston’ has attended court everyday thus far and is to be found in the public gallery.
I can only comment on last Friday when I spent the day in court 4 and can state categorically that he most certainly was NOT there at ANY time.
Perhaps JC can comment later about his presence, or lack of it, today.
IIRC, there was a report that he was spoken to at the beginning in the vicinity of the court following a complaint about his behaviour. Perhaps he decided to stay away after this. In my opinion, as they say.
Having read Mr D’s excellent tweets today re Mr Withy’s evidence in chief, I’m sure The Donald will be eager to cross examine once the AD has finished his line of questioning.

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
As you say “at least the jury have heard the exchange in full”.
That’s exactly what it’s all about. They get to hear not just the words but the way they are delivered.
I also agree that there should be no knocking of James and his tweets. He’s doing a great job under all the circumstances.
As regards the Liberty Capital letter, the jury  DID get a sight of it.
It was put up in full on TV screens around the court and they will also have copies of it.
No stone unturned etc 
Oh, and by the way, the Donald said, when McGill mentioned the word ‘King’, words to the effect that we shouldn’t worry as he’d be coming to him in due course.
If any of you guys can make it along there, I’d highly recommend it ( welcome back JC ?)

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
AJ & EJ,
I noticed your earlier comments re the Herald’s headlines about Murray being aware of he Ticketus deal.
I was up in Glasgow for a few days and spent Friday in court 4 at the high court watching proceedings from an interested bampot point of view.
What happened was that the Donald, during cross examination of McGill showed a letter from Liberty Capital, signed by Craig Whyte, addressed to Ticketus which stated, inter alia, that Murray was fully aware that Ticketus were to provide finance and was happy with this situation.
Findlay asked Mc Gill to comment and he said that these facts were totally untrue.
How  the Herald reported this is up to them but that’s how it went down.
Another interesting exchange was when Findlay returned to McGill’s earlier evidence that he thought the funds came from Whyte’s “personal resources” and had Murray known otherwise then the deal would not have gone through.
Findlay, making great play of Mc Gill’s earlier revealed Law Degree, centred on the meaning of “personal resources and asked him what it meant. He tried to reply in the ordinary sense but Findlay said as he was legally trained he should know what it meant.
He cited a deceased Scottish Judge who famously opined that his only tools were words.
Findlay then said “personal resources” could be him having a rich daddy inclined to indulge his every whim or he had a couple of rich friends who trusted him to invest money on their behalf or even he had a Modigliani hanging in his garage which he proposed to sell to fund the purchase of a business.
He then asked McGill, given his legal training, to define “personal” and “resources”.
I’m glad I wasn’t in the box!
I really enjoyed seeing  Findlay in action and all I could think of was Rikki Fulton at his finest.
To top it all, I got a smile from Craig as he passed me coming into court, I got to hold the door of the Gents while Findlay came in as I was leaving and I even got to have a chat with James Doleman and thank him for all the great work he’s doing keeping us informed.
One caveat having spent a day in court.
Don’t rely on just the tweets. Great though James does, he is not quoting word for word so things are said that are not always tweeted. It would be an impossible task to do otherwise.
Oh, and let’s not start on McGill saying they couldn’t find out too much about due diligence on the bold Craig.
Where were the Internet bampots when they needed them?

About the author