THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

ByAllyjambo

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.

In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.

Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!

In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.

Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.

So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?

Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.

It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.

What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.

In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).

The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.

It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.

As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?

And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.

Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:

“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”

What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.

Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:

  • (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
  • (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
  • (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,

It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!


SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED

Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.

Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.

Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.

Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.

So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!

Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”

And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”


In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!

And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.

And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.

So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’

What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.

When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.

When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!

Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?


WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?

We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?

Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!

Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?


Footnote

While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.

I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.

Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!

Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?

But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?

Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.

And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!

In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!


Acknowledgements
Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.


APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.


In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.

APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:32

I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.

APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO

March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart

APPENDIX IV
(46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.

Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.

While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.

So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.

While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.

About the author

Allyjambo author

What it says on the tin. My name is Ally. I am a Jambo in exile

1,483 Comments so far

Corrupt officialPosted on8:15 am - May 4, 2017


HOMUNCULUSMAY 3, 2017 at 23:26
WOTTPIMAY 3, 2017 at 23:17 
H – agreed it suited the main parties but with regards to who actually got hurt  today we were reminded of the small shareholders and of course subsequently we know how it worked out for debenture holders, creditors, face painters etc.
================================
Surely they lost out when the company was liquidated.
At the very earliest when it went into liquidation.
Not when Whyte bought the shares. Which as I understand it is when the offence he is accused of is alleged to have taken place.
——————————————————————–
   The small shareholders lost out at the point of sale HOMUNCULUS. CW soiught advice from the takeover panel when buying the shares from Minty, and they ruled that he didn’t have to make a bid for the remaining 15% or so
   They had in effect become worthless, as he had just bought 80 odd million for a quid.
   The debenture holders lasted slightly longer, losing out when Chuckles bought the bits from liquidation and formed a new club

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:45 am - May 4, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
MAY 4, 2017 at 08:15
=====================================

Forgive me but I don’t follow that logic.

Are we saying that when Craig Whyte bought David Murray’s shares in Rangers that everyone else’s shares became worthless. Was that reflected in the stock exchange.

I can see how there may be a fluctuation in their value at that stage, if the market was uncomfortable at the deal and people wanted out. However surely the value of the investment could go up as well as down.

If the value of the assets held was the same and the price the shares were trading at had not dropped to zero then I genuinely don’t see how the small investors shares had become worthless. 

Forgive my ignorance, it clearly isn’t my field. 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:20 am - May 4, 2017


HOMUNCULUSMAY 4, 2017 at 08:45
CORRUPT OFFICIALMAY 4, 2017 at 08:15=====================================
Forgive me but I don’t follow that logic.
  ——————————————————————-
    The remaining 15% were effectively wiped out at the point of sale. Dave King’s chief amongst them. Using what mechanism is beyond me, but their value became immeasurably small that a purchase was deemed unnecessary by the takeover panel. 
   Findlay QC worded it something like, “A pound divided by 89m”
   To my understanding he was referring to the going rate of the shares, brought about by the Whyte purchase. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:55 am - May 4, 2017


I know there are different classes of shares however an ordinary share is an ordinary share.

So if the “other 15%” of shares were worth nothing, or as near it as makes no difference then all of the shares in Rangers at that time were worth nothing (I am using worth incorrectly of course as it is down to the individual owner what they are worth to him). 

So what we are saying is that by doing the deal David Murray and Craig Whyte made the market capitalisation of Rangers £0. The total value of all of the issued shares became £0. 

Whilst I am quite happy to accept that, by the same logic Whyte’s shares were worth zero as well. Again making him just as much a victim as anyone else. Indeed more so, as he had committed to paying off all of the debt to LBG, paying off the small tax case, providing working capital for the business and dealing with the big tax case should Rangers lose their appeal. 

One can speculate on what the true underlying plan was, however the jury will be told to base their verdict on the evidence placed before them, not on speculation or received wisdom. 

View Comment

ulyanovaPosted on10:09 am - May 4, 2017


I understood, from James Doleman that there should be no speculation regarding the identity of future witnesses in the current trial. Roddy Forsyth would appear to be in breach of this in the article referenced by Homunculus yesterday.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:22 am - May 4, 2017


Just a small point.

” … King was then informed that his presence in court was no longer required.”

Does not mean that he is not a witness.

For preference the prosecution and defence will agree as much evidence as possible in advance. If it is all agreed for a witness then that witness does not need to appear, the evidence is simply put before the jury.

A statement being accepted into evidence is much quicker than going through evidence in chief and cross-examination. 

Equally the prosecutor can cite a person to cover specific points, they may cite a few to cover the same things. If they are happy that has been done by witnesses who have given their evidence then the other people can be stood down. They are then not really a witness, as they did not give evidence either in person or via a signed statement.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:48 am - May 4, 2017


First witness of the day, Michael McGill#WhyteTrial

Mr McGill takes the oath, tells court he is 49, and is a chartered accountant based in Edinburgh. Also has a law degree#WhyteTrial

McGill says he has worked as an insolvency specialist#WhyteTrial

McGill asked to explain difference between administration and liquidation. Says first is attempt to save a company, latter is end of it

McGill asked about a “pre-pack administration” Says is when a company goes into administration with a buyer arranged in advance.

The Advocate Depute says he will refer to Murray International Holdings as “Murray’ and David Murray as “Sir David Murray”#WhyteTrial

McGill says he became a director of Murray and agrees Rangers Football Club PLC was a subsidiary of the group.#WhyteTrial

Advocate Depute says he will refer to Rangers Football Club PLC as either “Rangers” or “The Club”#WhyteTrial

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:50 am - May 4, 2017


McGill says as Rangers were listed on the stock market it had a “stand alone management team” with the wider group giving support

McGill says no banking guarantee between the football club and the wider group. Bank could not make Murray Group pay club debts

McGill: in December 2005 Murray group invested £57.1m in Rangers to “reduce indebtedness’ #WhyteTrial

Witness says economic downturn in 2008 had a big impact on the group, Murray International Metals sold along with other businesses.

Advocate Depute asks about “Operation Charlotte” witness says generally known as “Project Charlotte”

McGill says aim in Project Charlotte was to sell assets and reduce debt. “Rangers by its nature took a disproportionate amount of time”

McGill says Rangers generated little value for the group

Decision made to sell Rangers shares in 2009 McGill says. “Sir David wanted to dispose of the club” Marketing activities began #WhyteTrial

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:56 am - May 4, 2017


McGill says Rangers board was informed of sale decision in late 2009 and a public announcement made. #WhyteTrial

McGill says he produced a “teaser” document for potential buyers on a “no name basis” and a more detailed prospectus

“Not a huge amount of interest in acquiring Murray’s share in the club” McGill tells the court #WhyteTrial

Withess going through process of deciding which bids were serious and which were just people being “nosy” #WhyteTrial

McGill describes this type of sale as a “rollercoaster” #WhyteTrial

Withess says there was a bid from a consortium led by Andrew Ellis in 2010.#WhyteTrial

Two individuals introduced by the brother of an English premier league manager, said they had €50m, proof of funds letter “fraudulent”

A bid for Rangers from a Lithuanian bank was rejected as there were fears it was linked to money laundering and organised crime

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:02 am - May 4, 2017


DH:
Ellis bid had funds from Lithuanian Bank. They had the wherewithal. Murray group veryuncomfortabledealing with the Lithuanian bank.

The bank had a reputationfor involvement in money laundering.

3 criteria for selling…clear bank debt, investment in playing squad, some value for shares sold. But first 2 were most important.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:16 am - May 4, 2017


JD:
Main conditions of sale were bank debt eliminated and investment into the club McGill says.#WhyteTrial

McGill says any bid for the shares that didn’t include investment into the club; “isn’t something we would have considered”#WhyteTrial

McGill says has met Craig Whyte, asked by the Advocate Depute he points at him in the dock sitting between two security officers.

Bank of Scotland funded 10 of the 12 Scottish premier football clubs McGill says but after takeover by Lloyd’s wanted out of sector

McGill says he joined the Rangers board to help the club be run “on a more financially realistic basis”#WhyteTrial

McGill asked if the club had stuck to the Bank’s financial conditions. Answers “By in large, yes it had.” Debt reduced by £10m

McGill says he was provided with an “incentive agreement” by Murray group based on sale of assets and debt reduction.#WhyteTrial

McGill agrees incentive agreements are “common in the commercial world” by selling assets he was “working himself out of a job”

McGill says his bonus arrangement did not have any impact on how he did his job “that’s not what motivates you to do the transaction”

DH:
Mike McGill – paid to do a job by Murray group not by Rangers. Incentive scheme too to encourage people to deliver, and to retain.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:20 am - May 4, 2017


JD:
McGill agrees he would never rush through a transaction just to get his bonus#WhyteTrial

McGill says club was introduced to Whyte by Andrew Ellis.#WhyteTrial

Lady Stacey suggests this would be a good moment for a break.Advocate Depute agrees, court adjourns#WhyteTrial

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on11:45 am - May 4, 2017


Homunculus May 3, 2017 at 23:03
‘..As it happens, King should have been a participant at another high-profile drama which is engrossing Rangers fans. He was cited as a witness in the trial at the High Court in Glasgow of Craig Whyte, who is alleged to have gained ownership of the club by fraudulent means in May 2011. He flew back to South Africa on Wednesday but it is understood that he met Stewart Regan, the SFA chief executive, for an informal discussion on general topics, before heading back.’ ‘What happened twixt him being cited as a witness and it being decided he was no longer required.’
 —————————————————————-
 
The Telegraph article also states: “His participation was kept quiet in order to avoid what would likely have been intense media and public interest”.
 
So the likes of Craig Whyte (innocent until proved guilty) has to run the gauntlet of hostility each day while one particular witness is singled out and given the court’s protection re: his privacy.   Who made that decision and why?  Every time Dave King jets into Glasgow Airport the media surrounds him.  By now he should not feel threatened by this type of attention.
 
As a concerned taxpayer I would like to know if King’s trip to Glasgow was paid for out of the public purse.  The Crown Office has a duty to keep costs to a minimum.  Who, therefore, is responsible for waiting until King is in town before informing him his services are no longer required?  I am assuming that King would have been entitled to something more that a budget airlines flight and a cheap B&B.
 
Why would the Chief Executive of the SFA hold talks with King when he has no status in the registered member club (TRFC)?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:04 pm - May 4, 2017


Have I got this right?

The bid from Andrew Ellis was ruled out because they suspected that his backers were involved in money laundering.

The bid they accepted was from a man introduced by the same Andrew Ellis.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:16 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute continues his examination in chief of witness Michael McGill#WhyteTrial

McGill tells the court a “data room” was created to give Craig Whyte’s team information about club. Not sure if real or “virtual”

McGill says club had performed well in 2009/2010 season and gained access to the Champions League. No longer “actively seeking” to sell club

McGill says he was not aware of any pressure from Lloyds bank to sell the club, Murray group still “open to offers” though

Bank not a party to proposed sale but due to debt “had to be involved” McGill says #WhyteTrial

McGill says he was aware of Ticketus, agrees their parent company was called “Octopus”

McGill says Rangers could not gain a consumer credit licence to take direct debit payments “because of one of the directors”

McGillin 2009 club looked like was going breach bank credit facility, money borrowed from Ticketus, £5-6m that year and again in 2010

McGill says Ticketus took control of some seats in the stadium, repayment when season tickets sold for these

McGill says Ticketus transaction did not appear on accounts as funds advanced in October and repaid in April, “no requirement to disclose”

Hence no liability when accounts produced

McGill says no desire to hide Ticketus transaction but they “recognised for some fans would be a sensitive issue”#WhyteTrial

McGill says lawyer Gary Withey said he had seen a proof of funds letter from a “UK financial institution” Email confirmation shown in court

McGill says proof of funds letter gave “comfort that the bidder had the funds to continue” allowed bidder to “kick the tyres”

Advocate Depute “Did you know the firm Collyer Bristow?”McGill “I had walked past their office”#WhyteTrial

View Comment

TincksPosted on12:31 pm - May 4, 2017


McGill says Rangers could not gain a consumer credit licence to take direct debit payments “because of one of the directors”

Who could they possibly be referring to?  09 
———————————————————
Separately, re the speculated non appearance of a witness.  In any trial the prosecution may well have a witness that they feel has evidence that would assist their case.  But if they worry that under cross examination such witness might reveal further details that would be detrimental to their case then the prosecution may decide not to call them.

I’d suggest that nothing would prohibit the defence from calling that witness and rolling the dice on it working in their favour.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:34 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
McGill says he first met Whyte in London in late 2010 to discuss transaction and the “Independent committee”#WhyteTrial

McGill says Independent committee was set up to represent minority shareholders. Any offer to majority shareholder must be made to all

McGill notes that in the end the deal for the shares was “nothing”

McGill agrees Independent committee could not stop the sale, only had an advisory capacity#WhyteTrial

McGill says the “data room” did contain the details of the Ticketus transactions#WhyteTrial

McGill says “At all times My Whyte assured us the funds were coming from his personal resources” says these were verbal assurances not email

McGill says he did discuss Ticketus with Craig Whyte, but only the “current arrangements” of “short term capital”

McGill says he has “no recollection whatever” of discussing a wider use of Ticketus by Whyte

McGill says initial deal was £5.5m for 100% of the shares Later reduced to a “notional pound”

McGill says Murray Group gave up payment for it’s shares “in return for investment in the club”

“It was a £27.5m transaction, not a pound” McGill tells the court #WhyteTrial

Donald Findlay rises to object to “a leading question base on an erroneous premise” Advocate Depute rephrases#WhyteTrial

View Comment

TincksPosted on12:58 pm - May 4, 2017


Re the Murray Group board meeting minutes.  It’s almost as if the business and the club are an indivisible entity!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:03 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
McGill says Whyte told him the £5m working capital for the deal was “coming from a recognised UK financial institution” rest from own funds

McGill says he had no knowledge Whyte was using 3 years of future season ticket income to finance purchase.

McGill says the Rangers board were “generally not supportive” of sale. Wanted funding for big tax case if lost.”Not an issue for Murray”

Jury now being given copies of Murray Group Board meeting May 2011

Minutes of Murray Group Board meeting being read in full. Will tweet highlights.#WhyteTrial

“Purpose of meeting” to discuss sale of shares in Rangers Football Club PLC”

Buyer of shares to pay “£1 in cash” a “nominal amount” #WhyteTrial

Minutes “we’ve tried to sell the football club for two years”

“No prospect of any financial returns from the shares”

“Took a disproportionate amount of time from the directors”

“Write the value down to zero”

Group not in a position to provide investment

McGill “we could have sold or walked away” but wanted to see investment in the club#WhyteTrial

McGill “The football club is rather an unusual asset which carries press a PR responsibilities”Murray didn’t want to just “walk away”

McGill, David Murray’s sole concern was to see investment in the club#WhyteTrial

Minutes still being read, mostly just technical details around filing etc

And that’s lunch, court adjourns until 2pm#WhyteTrial

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:06 pm - May 4, 2017


I think this morning’s proceedings have been the least interesting yet, I hope PMGB has got something for us to discuss later today as he further investigates the GCC response to his FOI appeal! Nothing on his site yet today.

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on1:15 pm - May 4, 2017


Reports are circulating that King flew in and met with Regan.

If this is true it is time the clubs got together and dealt with their CEO.
King is not, despite the media’s best efforts to convince the unwitting, the Chairman of the Rangers Football club, (formerly known as Sevco). He is chairman of a holding company.
Time for clubs to demand what Regan was discussing and to ensure that UEFA fair play rules are adhered to.
Regan must go soon

View Comment

TincksPosted on1:17 pm - May 4, 2017


AJ

Not many revelations to set the Bampot world alight – but perhaps the clearest outlining of where the prosecution side is going.

Any further comment (and i’d love to) would unfortunately be inappropriate.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:30 pm - May 4, 2017


TINCKS
MAY 4, 2017 at 12:31  ———————————————————Separately, re the speculated non appearance of a witness.  In any trial the prosecution may well have a witness that they feel has evidence that would assist their case.  But if they worry that under cross examination such witness might reveal further details that would be detrimental to their case then the prosecution may decide not to call them.
I’d suggest that nothing would prohibit the defence from calling that witness and rolling the dice on it working in their favour.

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

It would be wholly inappropriate for the prosecution to decide not to use a witness because they felt that under cross-examination he might do more harm than good. It’s shennanigans like that which caused the introduction of the requirement for disclosure in the first place. It’s not a case of “worrying” what might come out in cross-examinations, they would have to tell the defence all about it.

It’s important not to think of witnesses as a “prosecution witness” or a “defence witness”. They are simply a “witness”, it is one side or the other which has called them. 

At the very least the prosecution would be required to disclose the evidence that witness can provide to the defence. Who as you say can then call them if the prosecution doesn’t do it.

The prosecution are legally obliged to disclose anything that can either a, harm their case or b, assist any defence the accused may choose to run with.

View Comment

TincksPosted on1:38 pm - May 4, 2017


Hom,

Agree with most of that but a prosecutor is not obliged to call a potential witness to the stand.

It is not unprecedented that a potential witness might be uncalled by either side because they both fear the evidence given under cross examination might prove counterproductive. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:03 pm - May 4, 2017


TINCKS
MAY 4, 2017 at 13:38

Indeed, however the important point is that the Prosecution are obliged to tell the defence about anything which can hurt them or assist the defence.

If the defence choose not to call that witness that is up to them. 

View Comment

TincksPosted on2:07 pm - May 4, 2017


Hom,

Absolutely agree

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:11 pm - May 4, 2017


TincksMay 4, 2017 at 13:17 (Edit) 
AJNot many revelations to set the Bampot world alight – but perhaps the clearest outlining of where the prosecution side is going.Any further comment (and i’d love to) would unfortunately be inappropriate.
__________________________

Was thinking more or less exactly what you said, on both counts, the way it’s heading, and best not to say!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:18 pm - May 4, 2017


Ellis / Ackers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1393339/New-Portsmouth-owner-tried-buy-Rangers.html

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:24 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
Proceedings resume to hear more evidence from Crown witness Michael McGill.#WhyteTrial

McGill says Murray asked repeatedly for Whyte to deposit funds into a “client account” held by a solicitors#WhyteTrial

McGill says he did not think Withey letter was sufficient proof of funds, but was enough to “open the door of the data room”

Court shown letter from Collyer Bristow re “project Charlotte” says “Newco” will have sufficient funds #WhyteTrial

McGill says “Newco” was the company being set up to carry out the acquisition.#WhyteTrial

Letter goes on to say Whyte’s company was the beneficial owner of Liberty Capital, based in the Virgin islands#WhyteTrial

Letter “The share capital of Newco will be owned by Andrew Ellis (tba %) Chris Akers (tba%) and Liberty Capital (75%) Tba-To be Arranged

Letter “Total financial requirements for Project Charlotte is £33m’ “None of the finance to be secured against the assets of the target.”

Email from Craig Whyte to McGill April 22 2011: “As discussed have attached update on working capital..£5m pa for players”

Email also mentions additional working capital from Ticketus

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:31 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
McGill reply to Whyte “We have not had sufficient comfort on the issue of working capital”

McGill “The last thing we wanted was someone to buy the club on day one then go bust the next week” #WhyteTrial

Gary Withey email to McGill, says Wavetower has access to £5m in working capital from a “UK financial institution”

31 March email from Gary Withey: “I am pleased to confirm I now have access to the funds to complete the transaction”1/2

McGill, “that wasn’t enough for us as having access to the funds not the same as having them.” Still wanted deposit into client account

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:49 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
McGill email to on same day re funds: “I think it would be helpful to know how much you have received and how much you are waiting on”

Witness now being asked about Share Purchase Agreement between Whyte and Murray, says in corporate terms is “concise” #WhyteTrial

Jury given copy of the Share Purchase Agreement. Advocate Depute says the whole document will be read out to court #WhyteTrial

McGill says under the impression “All the funds were resting in the account of Collyer Bristow” 1/2

Says if he had known funds came from Ticketus would not have completed transaction, not legacy Murray wanted to leave behind

McGill starts reading the Share Purchase Agreement, is 27 pages long. #WhyteTrial

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:03 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
We have reached the part of the Share Purchase Agreement that defines the business day as 9am to 5pm excluding weekends.

Last Stacey notes McGill missed reading a paragraph of the Share Purchase Agreement. Was section defining “insolvency event” #WhyteTrial

Witness goes back and reads paragraph

Page 6 #WhyteTrial

Momentary delay as hole punched in document means two words can’t be read.Lady Stacey suggests is “control of” and we continue.

Court takes a break, back in 10-15 mins #WhyteTrial

View Comment

CrownStBhoyPosted on3:09 pm - May 4, 2017


On the subject of Mr Kings most recent visit to Hampden.

I believe the last time such an impromptu meeting took place was just before the Rangers’ AGM of 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34921891.

It was agreed then that it would now be the right time to repay Mike Ashley’s £5M loan:
“King said after the AGM, “I just think it gives us more flexibility. We felt it was the right thing to do at this moment in time.”

Perhaps the latest jolly old get together was just a similar circumstance, (or maybe I have a suspicious mind 06 )

View Comment

TincksPosted on3:09 pm - May 4, 2017


Now we know why fraud trials take so long

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:25 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
Proceedings resume with Michael McGill continuing to read out the Share Purchase Agreement between Craig Whyte and Murray. On page 8 of 27

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:42 pm - May 4, 2017


As I understand it, any document, or part of a document, that either party wishes to be used as evidence, has to be read to the court.  Thus far there have bee a mix of documents (e.g emails) read out in full, and only extracts of others (e.g. letters) read out.  When only an extract is read out, then only that extract can be used in evidence, leaving the jury unaware of the contents of the rest of the document.
 
As much of the SPA is actually legal jargon, I would expect that interpretation of it would be beyond the ken of several members of the jury.  I’m just surprised that the Crown feels the need to have the whole agreement submitted as one.
 
That said, I think that today’s evidence at least shows that the prosecution is now starting to build the case for a fraud having occurred.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:44 pm - May 4, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
MAY 4, 2017 at 10:56

A bid for Rangers from a Lithuanian bank was rejected as there were fears it was linked to money laundering and organised crime
=================

I’m sure there must be a joke there somewhere…but couldn’t possibly comment!  

And no mention of the infamous Minty ‘sniff test’ to vet prospective buyers…? 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:46 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
Share Purchase Agreement on purchaser “It has immediately available on it’s own or third party sources funds available”1/2

Advocate Depute notes this means “here and now” and on an unconditional basis

McGill says he interpreted, third party as meaning the “UK financial institution” providing £5m of working capital

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:51 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
In agreement purchaser undertakes not to do anything that would breach rules of SPL, SFA and UEFA and not to appoint any disqualified person

Agreement: “Barring an insolvency event” 90 days after the conclusion of tax case company to carry out share issue”

Me: Assuming he means the BTC, then that’s not concluded yet; would have meant a long wait for that share issue!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:58 pm - May 4, 2017


JD:
Agreement “If an insolvency event occurs, waiver ceases to apply”

Court adjourns until 10am tomorrow#WhyteTrial

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:05 pm - May 4, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
MAY 4, 2017 at 15:51  
JD:In agreement purchaser undertakes not to do anything that would breach rules of SPL, SFA and UEFA and not to appoint any disqualified person.

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

Am I no right in saying that Craig Whyte was disqualified as a Director. Ticketus used that when they sued him, because he had not disclosed it.

If he did not disclose it in the SPA then that is a clear deception, a constituent part of the fraud. 

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on4:22 pm - May 4, 2017


Need to be careful we don’t take what is stated in court and add our own context and opinion. Frustrating, I know, but better to be safe…

View Comment

tangoedPosted on4:31 pm - May 4, 2017


HOMUNCULUSMAY 4, 2017 at 16:05

If he did not disclose it in the SPA then that is a clear deception, a constituent part of the fraud.
 
—————————————————-
It was’nt a condition of the SPA agreement that it be disclosed,only that he did not appoint anyone to Rangers board who was disqualified.
 
Was craig whyte ever appointed to the rangers board?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:06 pm - May 4, 2017


TANGOED

MAY 4, 2017 at 16:31

A good point, I just had it in my head that he was on the board.

It just shows it’s worth checking these things.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:10 pm - May 4, 2017


I have checked and I can see that there is a termination of the directorship of Craig Thomas Whyte (18/01/1971) on 01/06/2012

Is that him.

Though as you say, if he didn’t have to disclose it then was it a deception.

I would suggest yes, agreeing not to put a disqualified person on the board, knowing you yourself were disqualified and intended to put yourself on the board is a deception. Unless he decided that after the purchase.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/OvveKiKNWYl69d54iuG9IIumNaTexl6fehVwbXi7rWE/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJF74QZWCVKCGQ26A&Expires=1493914194&Signature=q5mXKC9Lh3P6fX8W32ngHbkCYmA%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzENf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaDCEqU%2FVT5ngw37X3diK3AzlMkaKzC1eK7PjY7SJjrPpK0acMjZQv%2FNITHm8E%2FfD2cytg5ag3PTTJx2Guf4Zcr5NoYp2ojiC%2FB6XcT8VGFVjEyYdWm0JpsuhtUluwkzhpV4vfaGkOs3aZfccqhkJJSLcuZjDf80zvQZrIBk3hJfP2qfn%2FMdF4QZVyZjHedXBUHIE7K6Vxl75g0yYjnSf0bCKho%2FiHp7PCEsxvxC2b8DQZylc%2BrykzunfHr3GeYyoC9NZCdFK0K5KweSf4VZKTtEEMa1Kp71jyUo5jKRLZ%2FBOylSqRk8igR0y99JFz9Wi3PSB7bIDPo57ayHdDKTjdH%2BY6hlnBlEs1CZmjR3jzIsZEFrzm8u1WcYTGBBU73KVNcCKVSaUTDI6NSCfKbCA%2FbF%2Bncg034gThekH%2FE4yZRayboyGW%2BwijJSB4DrONUHpyjsRU2TTEUEL5tXwHHTUuvhz%2BQHm6DkkNF%2F8Hpezy%2FSONnLS25OqMMNLt5WYpSoiyxluXGtfETmmXl39dcK9hEhyyly2917ArBJBnpOk2%2B7PBQjKuYIfH2AtUetI9F2ZFQJTaLm3HvkzUq80awfA8lMFVRuxrWYsooPGsyAU%3D

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on5:23 pm - May 4, 2017


Just a thought – could King’s fleeting visit to see Regan be related to the ‘Silver Award’ that Rangers appear to have received in relation to UEFA qualifying criteria? That seems to have come out at around the same time….

View Comment

tangoedPosted on5:29 pm - May 4, 2017


HOMUNCULUSMAY 4, 2017 at 17:10
  
Unless he decided that after the purchase.
 
 —————————————————–
Double Checked with that company check,appointed may 11 till june 12…
 
He did appoint himself though so at the very least,he was in breach of the SPA agreement.A matter more for civil rather than criminal courts i would suggest.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:33 pm - May 4, 2017


TANGOED
MAY 4, 2017 at 17:29
==============================

Would you believe that he didn’t intend to become a director when the SPA was put in place, but subsequently changed his mind. 

That seems unlikely to me. 

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on5:34 pm - May 4, 2017


Sorry, should have posted a link to the club licensing:

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2017/280417CL%20current%20status.pdf

View Comment

tangoedPosted on5:40 pm - May 4, 2017


HOMUNCULUSMAY 4, 2017 at 17:33 
Would you believe that he didn’t intend to become a director when the SPA was put in place, but subsequently changed his mind. 
That seems unlikely to me. 
———————————————————————
Yeah me too but you would have to prove it.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:40 pm - May 4, 2017


AmFearLiathMòrMay 4, 2017 at 17:23 (Edit) 
Just a thought – could King’s fleeting visit to see Regan be related to the ‘Silver Award’ that Rangers appear to have received in relation to UEFA qualifying criteria? That seems to have come out at around the same time….
_______________________

Probably gave Regan some promises…

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:04 pm - May 4, 2017


Remember the last time Dave king dropped in for a visit and had a cup of tea?
Rangers’ King pays visit to SPFL
25 Nov 2015From the section Football

Rangers chairman Dave King has been at Hampden today for a private meeting with the SPFL. He insists it was brief and simply a “courtesy call”.
“It was just really a private meeting just for me to introduce myself to them,” he told BBC Scotland. “I hadn’t met them before. It was very much casual… It was just coming in and saying hi and talking to them.”
King refused to comment on other issues surrounding Rangers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34921891
——————–
The Clumpany had a good take on it.
Right now I feel like Lieutenant Columbo during a particularly befuddled moment, when something just doesn’t ring true, but you don’t know why.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/out-and-about-with-dave-king/

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:24 pm - May 4, 2017


Re the above. 2 days later Dave King boasts about Rangers’ financial health
http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/dave-king-boasts-about-rangers-financial-health/
Rangers chairman Dave King has made the astonishing claim that the Ibrox side are financially one of the strongest clubs in the world during Friday’s AGM in Glasgow.
—————–
I can’t remember if we ever found out the real reason why DK made a visit to hampden

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on6:30 pm - May 4, 2017


Craig Whyte’s disqualification has not been disclosed in the current proceedings so we should not discuss it in the context of other matters that have been disclosed.

However, just for clarity, it ended 4 years before he purchased his shares in Rangers.

View Comment

shugPosted on6:41 pm - May 4, 2017


Can someone explain to me in simple terms how the guy was a disqualified person at the point of sale.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:57 pm - May 4, 2017


The relevance of the disqualification issue will be the “Warranties and Undertakings” specified in the SPA relating to the football authorities.

6 .1.4         the acquisition of the Shares by the Purchaser will not lead to a breach of the rules of:
(a)        the Scottish Football Association (including but not limited to the dual interest rules contained therein);
 
(b)         the Scottish Premier League (including but not limited to the dual interest rules contained therein);
 
(c)        any rules promulgated or regulated by UEFA including but not limited to those relating to UEFA Champions League and Europa League participation; and
 
6.1.5  it will not appoint to the board of directors of the Company any person  who is  not permitted to act as a director of the Company as a matter of law or by reference to the rules of any footballing or other sporting organisation or body to which the Company is subject.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:44 pm - May 4, 2017


Just as an aside…
Looking at one article in the SMSM today, I couldn’t help but notice the photos of some who are currently visiting Court.
There seemed to be a pronounced difference in demeanour.

Shanks and Minty looked rather tense.  
Shanks was also a bit red in the face.
Minty’s coupon suggested he was deep in thought – and deadly serious – behind the wheel of his car.

And meanwhile, the bold Craigy looked like he hadn’t a care in the world, relaxed and jauntily strolling into court with his tie all a-flutter!

Which character is up on charges again…?  14

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:53 pm - May 4, 2017


Since the header of the Blog reads
THAT Debate, And The Beauty Of Hindsight.
A couple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.
—————-
I would like to add one or two tweet’s from @ jamesdoleman if i may?
—————–
Mr McGill takes the oath, tells court he is 49, and is a chartered accountant based in Edinburgh. Also has a law degree.
Mr McGill says he has worked as an insolvency specialist.
Mr  McGill asked to explain difference between administration and liquidation. Says first is attempt to save a company, latter is end of it.
Mr  McGill asked about a “pre-pack administration” Says is when a company goes into administration with a buyer arranged in advance
———-
I believe Mr McGill explains it very well in court
Mr  McGill asked to explain difference between administration and liquidation. Says first is attempt to save a company, latter is end of it.
Are you watching and listening SMSM

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:18 pm - May 4, 2017


Apologies, clearly I was mistaken when I thought Craig Whyte was still banned as a director when he bought the shares from David Murray.

I think I got mixed up by two things.

1st That he had not disclosed the previous ban to Ticketus when selling the tickets to them, which they used when they sued him.

2nd That rangers were fined £50,000 and suspended on PLUS because of his failure to disclose.

However neither mean he was disqualified at the time he bought the shares. Thanks to others for correcting me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9108881/Rangers-fined-50000-over-Craig-Whytes-director-disqualification.html

Whyte’s failure to disclose that he had been banned from becoming a company director for seven years by the UK Insolvency Service yesterday cost Rangers when they were fined £50,000 by the PLUS Stock Exchange, who had also suspended trading in Rangers’ shares as a consequence.

Yesterday he described the fine as “really irrelevant,” claiming that his ban was “a matter of public record”.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:57 pm - May 4, 2017


Well done to Ross County who just secured the Development League title after Hamilton could only draw 0-0 with Celtic in the final game of the league season. County finished on 66 pts, with Hamilton 2nd, two points behind and Celtic 3rd a further point adrift.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on9:24 pm - May 4, 2017


Seems to me a confused ramble from Tom English here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39784876

“An unpopular old board have been removed – a war that needed to be won – but the new board are coming under some scrutiny from their own people now. Back-to-back beatings of the kind of magnitude of Hampden and Ibrox tend to provoke a reaction.”

The whole piece seems to lack any kind of focus and the above clipping just …well just, ” a war that needed to be won ” ?? …go on then Tom please justify that statement in  light of recent court cases and takeover panel pronouncements.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:04 pm - May 4, 2017


Full judgement

https://www.scribd.com/document/136013092/Ticketus-v-Whyte-Judgment-HC12F03282

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:16 pm - May 4, 2017


Typical Tom English Gunnerb, tries too hard to be neutral but just comes over as sitting on the fence.  Has he actually got a strong opinion about anything?  Ever?  Without get out clauses?  It’s a pity because he has the makings of a decent sports commentator.  5 marks out of 10.  Stick to the rugby Tom.

BTW, 5 out of 10 for SMSM is very good from me. I usually rate them 1 or 2.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:04 pm - May 4, 2017


I enjoyed the last podcast which included James Doleman.  But he spoke like a man with his hands tied behind his back for obvious reasons.  It would be great to have him back after the trial is all over and done with whichever way it goes.  I don’t expect he would be sensationalist in his manner, he doesn’t sound like that sort of guy but it would be good to hear his open opinions.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:19 pm - May 4, 2017


Sorry to be a pest, this is my last post I promise.  But I hope this makes up for the bad part of Scott Sinclair’s week.  The wee boy just loves him – Karma –

http://www.talkingbaws.com/2017/05/video-scott-sinclair-dancing-along-song-young-celtic-fan-must-watch/

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on12:12 am - May 5, 2017


I am patiently waiting to see the source of information given to the media that the new owner was a billionaire. This will be the icing on the cake if you can make up stories and extort money from a gullible paying public then you are as guilty as the people in the High Court.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:22 am - May 5, 2017


BIGBOAB1916MAY 5, 2017 at 00:12 
I am patiently waiting to see the source of information given to the media that the new owner was a billionaire. This will be the icing on the cake if you can make up stories and extort money from a gullible paying public then you are as guilty as the people in the High Court.
    —————————————————————————————————————
   I seem to recall that Klaxon “fessed up” that Jabba ordered him to run with it.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:40 am - May 5, 2017


bigboab1916May 5, 2017 at 00:12
‘….to see the source of information given to the media that the new owner was a billionaire.’
_________
And a Motherwell- born one, at that!

I still cannot believe that no one in the SMSM thought of even trying to check,via Companies House, in any way whatsoever,  the history of the billionaire.

Was it our keef who planted that piece of absolute nonsense?

If so, why?
Can he really have  been so thick and gullible? Had he been a guest at Castle Grant at any time? Like some fawning, overawed sychophantic creep?

Will we ever know?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:08 am - May 5, 2017


My post of 00.40 above:  not ‘sychophantic’ but ”sycophantic”.

I remember being wholly puzzled at the derivation of the word ‘sycophant’

Something to do with guys who climbed up fig-trees for some reason or other.

But it was to do with concepts such as ar.e licking

At which art, our football ‘journalists’ excel!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:31 am - May 5, 2017


JOHN CLARKMAY 5, 2017 at 00:40       5 Votes 
bigboab1916May 5, 2017 at 00:12‘….to see the source of information given to the media that the new owner was a billionaire.’_________And a Motherwell- born one, at that!
I still cannot believe that no one in the SMSM thought of even trying to check,via Companies House, in any way whatsoever,  the history of the billionaire.
Was it our keef who planted that piece of absolute nonsense?
If so, why?
———————-
CORRUPT OFFICIALMAY 5, 2017 at 00:22
I seem to recall that Klaxon “fessed up” that Jabba ordered him to run with it.
——————-
I believe KJ said on twitter something along the lines of “We were told to call him a billionaire,So we did”
Someone will have screengrabbed it probably Mintys Lamb @mintys_lamb

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:52 am - May 5, 2017


Good morning all…haven’t posted a comment for a few months…has anything happened.?..especially in the RIFC omnishambles 151515…?

View Comment

Pat ByrnePosted on9:21 am - May 5, 2017


As things are a bit slow this morning, thought I would throw in a curve ball, sorry in advance if this has been explored in previous blogs.
When Charles Green bought his basket of assets, if say a third party had come in and outbid him, would the Liquidators be obliged to consider this bid if it was more beneficial to the creditors . If so if the alternative bid was from say Aberdeen FC or even heaven forbid Celtic FC, what would prevent that club from claiming the history in much the same way as TRIFC  have done? There is a distinct possibility that admin followed by liquidation could happen again and as a precedent has been set, I would love to see Regan and Co wriggle their way out of that one, Imagine CFC with an unprecedented 100 league titles in the bag, hilariously ludicrous. Oh what a tangled Web they have spun.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:44 am - May 5, 2017


essexbeancounterMay 5, 2017 at 08:52 (Edit) 
Good morning all…haven’t posted a comment for a few months…has anything happened.?..especially in the RIFC omnishambles …?
_________________________

Great to see you back, Essex 04 but in answer to your question, nah, nothing much14

Just the usual run of the mill Scottish football stuff – like court cases, tribunals, hearings, racism, sectarianism, WATPism… and the SFA doing SFA about any of it!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:12 am - May 5, 2017


JD:
Proceedings resume with Crown witness Michael McGill continuing to read out the Share Purchase Agreement between Craig Whyte and Murray

The agreement is 27 pages long #WhyteTrial

The agreement specifies that Whyte invest £5m per year in the “squad of football players maintained by the company” #WhyteTrial

Agreement goes on that in the event of an insolvency event the same obligation would apply to any “successor entity” #WhyteTrial

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:18 am - May 5, 2017


JD:
McGill says clause was included as “an adverse finding in the big tax case could have led to an insolvency event” #WhyteTrial

The agreement also specifies that Whyte put aside £2.8m to settle the “Small tax case”#WhyteTrial

View Comment

Comments are closed.