SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco

Avatar By

Auldheid 25th September 2015 at 9:15 pm Auldheid I think …

Comment on SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco by Bayview Gold.

Auldheid 25th September 2015 at 9:15 pm

Auldheid I think it is more like this 😆

Bayview Gold Also Commented

SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco
wow – truth is sometime stranger than fiction, I was just looking up the wiki entry for Telstar song and at the foot there is the comment that two football teams use it, EFFC and Telstar who it turns out are a lower league Dutch club formed in 63 from VSV and Stormvogels – yes, you are all asking but where is this leading.

Well here is the weird part – in 1938 a certain lower league Scottish club won the Scottish Cup, meanwhile across the North Sea a certain dutch club was also winning the Dutch (KNVB) cup both events being the respective clubs only wins of that trophy.

my trivia fact for tonight!

SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco
speaking of the intro tunes for clubs – the mighty Fife always grace our presence to this classic

(Scottish Football needs a strong 60s instrumental)

SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco
in reference to my earlier post this excerpt from John James (@sitonfence) wordpress blog ( https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/greens-litigation-cover-could-include-defending-an-investors-class-action-suit-re-ipo/ )

However there is another legal action that few have had the foresight to recognize. There is the distinct possibility that the IPO was predicated on misappropriated assets. If this is the case, the legal costs of defending Green from an investors’ class action suit would render RIFC insolvent.

as I mentioned earlier there is this prevailing thought that investors would have issue with a certain individual but this is not the case, the investors were investing in a company, not an individual, the company produced the prospectus, the company received the proceeds.

Therefore any follow on action around investment loss would be against the company not any ex director.

the company would NOT be defending an individual but would be defending itself – so it is not just the legal costs that they are exposed to but any liabilities attached to any claims. Which could dwarf the legal costs.

And again this may be brought against a company who could have lost its major assets in another case. (personally I’m not sure they would lose the assets but could be stung with a sum for redress)

One thing is for sure – if they make it to the next accounts reporting cycle then the contingency section may make interesting reading.

Recent Comments by Bayview Gold

Two wrongs and a right
Dropping out of lurking mode for a few mins to wish everyone at SFM and all contributors and lurkers a very (if belated) happy new year and a reminder to keep fighting the good fight.
Scottish football needs a Strong Arbroath, East Fife and judiciary in 2016!

Whose assets are they anyway?
RIFC are done for, the pending debts are too high, cash flow problems, no funding available and depending on various court outcomes potential large liabilities for both the asset transfer and the IPO monies. (insurance will not cover those if fraudulent)
So it is simply a matter of timing, what we are seeing with DCK & Ashley is simply a fun game of brinkmanship or ‘pass the parcel’ where DCK is desperate not to be left ‘holding the bag’ and blamed when they do go down and hoping he can goad someone else to pull the trigger and Ashley giving DCK enough rope and estimating the best time to minimise losses without being blamed.
Everything else is just a sideshow. 

The Case for a New SFA.
HirsutePursuit 14th October 2015 at 8:39 am #

Thanks HP, that answered my question,

re the IPO – that to me is the one that should have the alarm bells ringing, while the other ones may murky the waters re assets, really it is still just a squabble over which of the parties is left with a chair on the Sevco/Oldco musical chair extravaganza, the big financial threat is potentially any liability to RIFC over the IPO: £22M worth of risk.

But I’m sure if that happened DCK would just jet in with a newly opened warchest and see them right.

The Case for a New SFA.
HirsutePursuit 13th October 2015 at 8:18 pm
Allyjambo 13th October 2015 at 8:48 pm

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (ok too late 14 ) this is a very important point and the glee from supporters of the “club” over the case may be short lived. Officers of a company are in the legal sense acting for a company therefore as HP posted liability may fall on the company. This is true to an extent for any employee but much more important for officers and executives. Remember TRFC are Sevco Scotland despite what the press may lead you to believe, Sevco scotland were set up and run by CG therefore they may be liable for any misdeeds occurring while CG was in place – potential liability for a company does not end on termination of the employee.
Where I am confused (and looking for help here) is that the charges outlined so far don’t seem to be clearly aligned to any specific time frame. There are three distinct trigger events that were chock full of potential shenanigans (although TRFC seemed to stretch laws/regulations on a daily basis)

1) Purchase of RFC Ltd from Murray by Whyte & the ticketus saga
2) Purchase of the RFC assets by Sevco from D&P and the switcheroo
#1 seemed to have a case pending based on earlier arrests but that seems to have gone away – is it the opinion here that 1 & 2 have now been folded together?
#3 – this one has a much bigger potential liability for RIFC – is this in any way forming part of the upcoming trial?
Each of these has distinct and different “victims” of any alleged wrong doing.
Hopefully I have steered a non-judgmental way through discussing public domain knowledge of a live proceeding!

Scottish football needs a strong something or other.

The Case for a New SFA.
neepheid 13th October 2015 at 8:06 pm

Thanks NH seems pretty clear on the guilty/not guilty aspect, good post!

About the author