SFM – The Next Steps

Avatar By

On the talk of Celtic mindedness or otherwise, as has …

Comment on SFM – The Next Steps by Bayview Gold.

on the talk of Celtic mindedness or otherwise, as has been pointed out given the disparity of fan bases even equal representation %age wise from the clubs would mean you would expect more CFC fans on here, looking at the reverse, given the somewhat less than 500M EFFC fanbase, with me and Methilhill Stroller on here, EFFC seem to be punching above their weight 🙂

what might be fun/educational is for a poll to be run to see which clubs and how well represented they are on here. (with the provision for “none” for the neutrals 😉 )

Bayview Gold Also Commented

SFM – The Next Steps
the other strange aspect of his claim is that while D&P and BDO expand at detail on the merits of debts/credits in the sums of tens of thousands, a claim for £20M just appears out of nowhere in may 2013 with no explanation in the BDO report. Surely a new development like that deserved some explanation to the other creditors.


SFM – The Next Steps
I am still confused over the DCK creditor claim, it is clear that he invested in MSL, he subsequently became the second largets shareholder in RFC, however at the time of the admin there was talk of claim against the club because of Murray’s mis-representation. What isn’t clear is why against the club? surely his beef was with Murray, MIH or MSL? which is where he initially invested. Also the D&P report aug 2012 had no provision for this claim, but the BDO report may 2013 has a £20M directors claim. When and how did his claim become valid? is there any paper trail or court docs?


SFM – The Next Steps
to the mods – the twitter name on the radio blog page is incorrect @sfmonitor instead of @Thesfmonitor, good luck with the show! 😀


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
3) The RIFC IPO
#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

Avatar