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.
JD:
Agreement specifies Whyte would put aside £1.7m for “health and safety expenditure” at Ibrox#WhyteTrial
Me: I think it’s worth pointing out that what James quotes as ‘health and safety expenditure’ (he puts it in quotation marks so I presume is what is read out in court), David Henderson of the BBC ‘to provide 1.7m to the club to cover repairs to Ibrox stadium’ (his tweet is not in quotation marks). Not a great deal of difference, I suppose, and wouldn’t mean much in normal circumstances, but. if it was read out in court, and is stated in the document as ‘health and safety expenditure’, then why not call it that in his tweet? Trying to avoid an unpleasant truth, perhaps?
JD:
Agreement specifies Whyte could not use assets of the company as security for loans.#WhyteTrial
Whyte also agreed not to borrow money from the company for his own use.
Agreement specifies that Whyte’s obligations “continued and survived” if a new company was set up after an insolvency event.
DH(BBC):
Next one – says Craig Whyte bought club debt on completion. Playing squad, tax case, h&s 9.5m added to 18m, so on insolvency his debt’s 27.5m
Me: My bold – That’s what happens when you buy a football club! The bad comes with the good, if you only get the good, then all you’ve bought is the club’s assets, you’ve left the club behind with the rest of the crap!
McGill says that Murray selling the majority shareholding for a pound did not reduce the value of shares held by supporters. #WhyteTrial
Agreement says Murray Group retains the right to negotiate with HMRC a “Full and final settlement of the tax case” on behalf of Rangers.
Also says Whyte cannot reach his own deal with HMRC over EBT issue without permission from Murray
In the agreement Murray group keep the right to access the premises and personnel of Rangers over the tax case. 1/2
Whyte also agreed only to use “professional advisors” in the tax case that had been approved by Murray.
Murray group also wanted copies of all correspondence relating to the tax case.
Agreement includes a “statement of non-embarrassment of each other”1/2
McGill says Murray didn’t want Whyte to be publicly “critical of his time at the club” agrees is “unusual” clause. #WhyteTrial
JD:
“We’re nearly at the end” the Advocate Depute tells the court.
Agreement says obligations would also apply to any third parties who later bought the club. McGill agrees is also unusual.
Share Purchase Agreement states any dispute is to be “governed by English Law” #WhyteTrial
The reading out of the Share Purchase Agreement has ended. Was signed on 6 May 2011.
Court takes it’s morning break#WhyteTrial
JD:
Proceedings resume after the morning break. Former Rangers’ board member and Murray head of finance Mike McGill still on stand.#WhyteTrial
JD:
Jury now being given copies of a side letter to the agreement dealing with how Whyte was to deliver funds.#WhyteTrial
Letter is from Whyte’s advisor Gary Withey #WhyteTrial
McGill says letter was needed as transaction occured “outside normal business hours”#WhyteTrial
Letter says £5m will be transferred to the club for spending on the playing squad
£1.7m for “health and safety” issue
Me: Interestingly, David Henderson tweets ‘one was to pay 1.7m to company as requested’ – without mentioning the purpose of that 1.7m! It’s almost as if he can’t mention the words health and safety (note, James, again, uses quotation marks)
JD:
£2.8m for small tax case
JD:
McGill says he had no knowledge that Whyte was using money from Ticketus to find the purchase of Rangers#WhyteTrial
Jury being shown a letter from Liberty Capital to Ticketus from March 2011 signed by Craig Whyte
In the letter Whyte says the “current owner” of Rangers is aware of the finance plan
Adds “We will be repaying the Lloyd’s debt with the money we raise by selling tickets to you”
The current owner “is comfortable with it”
Whyte letter to Ticketus says they have asked David Murray to accept the role of “Life President of the club..he has accepted”#WhyteTrial
McGill says the letter is “untrue” apart from the “Life President” proposal.#WhyteTrial
McGill says he is familiar with the term “fire sale” denies deal with Whyte was one.#WhyteTrial
McGill, “only the club itself could sell the assets of the club… including the season tickets”#WhyteTrial
JD:
McGill says on the day of the sale “I ceased any involvement in the club” only found out about Ticketus deal from the press
Adds “we were appalled”
McGill says they expected Whyte to use Ticketus services but only for “short term capital” #WhyteTrial
Advocate Depute ends. Donald Findlay QC rises to cross-examine#WhyteTrial
AllyjamboMay 5, 2017 at 11:21
‘…Agreement says obligations would also apply to any third parties who later bought the club. McGill agrees is also unusual.’
___________________
We have to remind ourselves, of course, that the club referred to is the liquidated club.
There was no possibility of a third party buying ‘RFC’, which ceased to be a football club.
The damnable perversion of the Football authorities in agreeing to the fiction that CG’s new creation was ‘continuity Rangers’, provided he accepted responsibility for RFC’s football debts) marks those authorities out as liars, cheats, and knaves of a worse order than those others involved in the ‘saga’.
The everyday cheating of businessmen trying to line their own pockets is as nothing compared to the cheating of men whose bounden duty it was to ensure that a sport is unrigged, unfixed, and scrupulously fair to all participants.
Scottish Football administration has been and remains as vile a creature as a bent police officer.
Whatever the outcome of any court case, we are left with that stark fact.
JD:
McGill says he is currently employed as the finance director of a “fast moving food business” left Murray’ group on liquidation in 2014
McGill confirms he has given evidence in court before about some of the issues in the case#WhyteTrial
McGill says he became a non-executive director of Rangers in October 2009.
McGill says both David Murray and the bank wanted him on the board but can’t remember who first suggested it#WhyteTrial
Findlay asks if Murray Group was “technically insolvent in 2009?”McGill replies “yes”#WhyteTrial
McGill says aim of Project Charlotte was to “sell the businesses and the properties” agrees they were “selling everything”
Findlay “Murray got to the point it had no assets?”McGill “Yes”Findlay “The club had to go”
Findlay asks about Dave King. McGill says he was still on the board at the time of sale”We’ll certainly come back to that one” Findlay says
)
(My bold, for obvious reasons
JD:
McGill agrees the Rangers board was “disfunctional”#WhyteTrial
Findlay “Are you a football man?”McGill “I used to be”
McGill “without European success the club could not be profitable”I could give you a very good example”Findlay “just answer my questions”
McGill agrees David Murray was a “generous benefactor”Findlay “The model of spending to get success failed”
Findlay “The Rangers directors wanted to keep spending?”McGill, “wanted to follow the traditional model”Findlay “But there was no money”
McGill says there was “a significant debate” about a sustainable plan. Board vote was only 5-4 in favour.
McGill “The (football) results for the club were bound to deteriorate in the longer term”Findlay “In a year or two?”McGill “Yes”
Findlay “The quality of the product was deteriorating” McGill “That depended on Champions League qualification on a smaller budget”
Saddened to see yet another fellow CA, instrumental in the whole MIH/RFC tax planning, aka tax avoidance/evasion/EBT scenario, squirming in court under cross examination. Just how many CAs have been involved in helping David Murray carry out his destruction of Scottish Football and his own publicly quoted business, but still leaving him a millionaire, relatively unscathed by his own misdeeds, for which he was ennobled?
JD:
Findlay: “You were having difficulty taking the other directors into the realistic world?”McGill: “Yes”
McGill agrees Rangers came close to breaching their overdraft limit in 2010. Says bank could have begun insolvency proceedings
Findlay: Who found out about Ticketus as a source of income?”McGill says it was Martin Bain#WhyteTrial
Findlay asks if the bank decided to go to Ticketus?McGill says was a board decisionYou were the finance supremo?That’s a flattering term
Findlay “There will be no flattery here”
Findlay “Why didn’t Murray sack the board and replace them with people who knew what they were doing? 1/2
McGill “That was the sort of public falling out he wouldn’t have wanted” 2/2
Court adjourns for lunch, back at 2pm.#WhyteTrial
John ClarkMay 5, 2017 at 12:38 (Edit)
We have to remind ourselves, of course, that the club referred to is the liquidated club.There was no possibility of a third party buying ‘RFC’, which ceased to be a football club.
_______________________
I think we have to remember that the points being raised at the moment assume that any insolvency event would be sorted using a pre-pack administration (it has been raised previously by witnesses), with the possibility of liquidation not even being considered, so the words used do not hold any significance towards TRFC, other than it is clear that there was only one club at Ibrox, and that one had debts, lots of debts! They keep referring to the club’s debts, the club’s assets, but no mention is ever made of a club with neither debts nor assets! It is a club with both debts and assets that everyone was trying to save, that everyone was emotionally attached to, that some of the board wanted to spend money that that club didn’t have, in order to increase it’s trophy haul.
I get the impression that much of what has been put into this agreement is there in the anticipation of an insolvency event, and has the aim of distancing certain parties from that event, by showing they took every precaution to prevent it happening, if writing something down can be classed as a precaution!
I’m afraid it’s back to work for me in a wee while, I don’t know why I punish myself in that way, so, although I will be able to follow what’s going on, and make comment here, I won’t be able to update James Doleman’s tweets to the blog for those who aren’t on twitter and, I think, as a reference point for later discussions on what’s raised today. Oh, and it’s me for a fortnight, off to Lanzarote on Monday
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 6m6 minutes ago More Copy link to TweetEmbed TweetReplying to @jamesdoleman
McGill “If they came out if insolvency that would have preserved the old club.”
Findlay “Let’s not go into all that”
Facts avoidance!
ALLYJAMBO
MAY 5, 2017 at 13:39
…
Oh, and it’s me for a fortnight, off to Lanzarote on Monday
=================================================
Eh?!
How did you manage to get these holiday dates OK’d by BP?!
Enjoy the sun, and thanks for your impressive service to keeping us Bampots informed: you’re probably sick of it by now ?
EBC
Just where the f… blooming heck have you been ?
Yes, you missed your opportunity to have a pop at yet another CA – squirming on the witness stand yesterday.
But just like the buses, I’m sure there’ll be another one along soon.
Court not sitting on Monday.
I can’t believe this is the same Donald Findlay who was dyed in the wool Rangers. I had my doubts about him before the outset, but my goodness he is ripping the old board apart with relish.
Mind you the clue was there when he said TRFC was a new club. One of the few to do so and that was a while after the continuity myth had taken root.
STEVIEBCMAY 5, 2017 at 15:13 (EDIT)
Thanks for the kind words, Stevie, but I actually enjoy posting James’ tweets on here as it’s so frustrating reading what’s been said in court with no one to turn to to say, ‘what the Falkirk, did he really say that?’
Test
John Clark
May 5, 2017 at 00:40
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?
JC
“McGill says Whyte’s name was in the public domain and “the press” would be investigating him.”
“McGill agrees only “very limited due diligence on Mr Whyte” Findlay “who did you hire to do it” McGill “We didn’t”
John are we forgetting who owned the press/PR? There was no mess up and regards the press we have finally discovered, without been called paranoid, are bought and told. The above statement in court today confirms, and this was why I posed the question. The media are selling their stories to a select audience and the SFA are assisting in the paperwork, you do know why a certain individual was not required yet in court, however the day is coming for him after other matters are discussed.
It seems like the prevailing view in England – fans – pundits – media is that Scottish football is dross. A one horse race. Why is it then, if half of the reports are true, that about half of the first team squad at Celtic have all these top English clubs drooling at the mouth? And in Europe too. If we are so bad why the acclaim? after all we only playing diddy teams!! (not my opinion, theirs). I think a lot of players who come up here are surprised at the level of competitiveness and passion. If Celtic were to sell all our targets we would pocket 100m +. Some dross!
Celtic btw would not be good enough to play in the EPL. Ask Man City about that! Burst their bubble.
If I was being a cynical Bampot…
Why did King meet up with Regan, as alleged ?
Clumps has generously already provided a version of the conversation.
However, choice of biscuits aside, I just don’t think King does small talk !
But, why meet up at all when Skype / email / phone call / text could suffice ?
And then there was always the risk of them being spotted / photographed together.
Simply wild speculation on my part.
They – both – preferred a face to face, so no formal trace of their communication would exist.
[Phones switched off and pay for meal or drinks with cash.]
What did King have to offer – and what did he want ?
Only offer of value I can think of is King’s silence – or helpful corroboration – on all matters SFA / Regan.
[Could be related to the Euro licence in 2011/12, ‘Fit & Proper’, the 5WA, the condition of the stadium, etc. ?]
What would King want ?
A Euro licence, maybe time, an OK for a potential future TRFC version 2.0 ?
What did Regan have to offer – and what did he want ?
Regan could offer a Euro licence – and maybe ongoing / further co-operation with Ibrox plans.
What would Regan want ?
Silence from King, to avoid the SFA being exposed in all its corruption ?
If they did meet up – and it was just the two of them – it would suggest a personal nature to the discussion ?
i.e. Regan was looking to save his neck, and King was maybe looking to buy a Euro licence and time for his own, financially beneficial reasons ?
Otherwise, you would expect the SFA CEO to have a ‘chaperone’ just in case, to cover his ar$e / his own version of events ?
[IIRC, Ogilvie accompanied Regan when they discreetly met with Whyte back in Oct/Nov 2011 – when RFC was expected to implode. But unknown to the Bampots then, HMRC deductions were used to keep the lights on until the following February.]
Has any hack actually approached either Regan or King to get a comment ?
[The Telegraph / Forsyth article doesn’t have any quotes but includes the common disclaimer “…it is understood…”.]
DR headline;
“Rangers superfan travelled the world on a shoestring budget for seven years to track down 85 nine-in-a-row heroes”
Could be an undercover ‘Hector’, posing as a loyal bear to obtain ex-players’ home addresses…for future correspondence ?
That would be amusing.
Some late tweets from James Doleman
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 46m46 minutes ago Looking back at my notes something from the #WhyteTrial I didn’t have a chance to tweet
Asked later by Donald Findlay QC about Rangers being a “major Scottish institution”
McGill replied “That’s exactly what the Permanent Secretary said”
Findlay replied: “Far be it from me to disagree with the Permanent Secretary”
I spent some time earlier searching for a kind of ‘sub committee’ set up from the old Rangers board to investigate the background of Craig Whyte. The eventual report was damming but SDM put it aside maintaining that the bank was forcing his hand. My point however is that outside sources were used to compile that report. I cannot find it but I know I read it several times. When I search for due diligence on Craig Whyte its all recent issues re. the current trial not what was being reported on 2010/2011. I think this is where Donald Findlay was heading towards with his question about did they hire outside specialists. Maybe he is keeping his powder dry.
jimbo May 5, 2017 at 21:44
I spent some time earlier searching for a kind of ‘sub committee’ set up from the old Rangers board to investigate the background of Craig Whyte. The eventual report was damming but SDM put it aside maintaining that the bank was forcing his hand. My point however is that outside sources were used to compile that report. I cannot find it but I know I read it several times. When I search for due diligence on Craig Whyte its all recent issues re. the current trial not what was being reported on 2010/2011. I think this is where Donald Findlay was heading towards with his question about did they hire outside specialists. Maybe he is keeping his powder dry.
================================
There is mention of the “Titon” dossier here
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/the-whyte-files-private-investigation-revealed-1407428
AllyjamboMay 5, 2017 at 17:09
______________________________________
Sent you a PM AJ!!
easyJamboMay 5, 2017 at 20:35
‘……McGill replied “That’s exactly what the Permanent Secretary said”..’
________________
I suppose that’s a reference to Sir Peter Housden, who was criticised for allegedly ‘going native’when he was Permanent Secretary taking orders from the Scottish First Minister!
Perhaps he was the one who advised Salmond to try to interfere with HMRC!
Thanks EJ.
AllyjamboMay 3, 2017 at 12:50
‘….Court now looking at agreement between the bank and Murray on sale of shares” Findlay “What’s the D.R.A.G?”Shanks doesn’t know’
______
I’ve just been scrolling back over witness Shanks’ testimony.
Was it ever discovered what the D.R.A.G acronym refers to?There must have been some reason why Findlay, QC asked the question.
And it strikes me as strange that the representive of a bank which is signing some kind of deal with a client who owes them a fortune should be ignorant of the meaning of any word or terms used in the documentation of that deal.
Shanks, of course, is not on trial.
But he does not inspire me with confidence in his abilities. And I shall forthwith remove my £1.00 savings account from Lloyds/BoS!
AllyjamboMay 3, 2017 at 12:50‘….Court now looking at agreement between the bank and Murray on sale of shares” Findlay “What’s the D.R.A.G?”Shanks doesn’t know’______I’ve just been scrolling back over witness Shanks’ testimony.
Was it ever discovered what the D.R.A.G acronym refers to?There must have been some reason why Findlay, QC asked the question.
And it strikes me as strange that the representive of a bank which is signing some kind of deal with a client who owes them a fortune should be ignorant of the meaning of any word or terms used in the documentation of that deal.
Shanks, of course, is not on trial.
But he does not inspire me with confidence in his abilities. And I shall forthwith remove my £1.00 savings account from Lloyds/BoS!
——————————————————————————————————————
John,
Im amazed that Shanks ” doesn’t know ” what DRAG is given the level of corporate finance he was dealing at.
Drag is a well known term in business circles for majority shareholders who want to forcefully get minority shareholders to accept the sale of the company . The majority shareholder is basically dragging the minority shareholders along with the sale .
Now Imagine the bad publicity that would bring if the owner of a football club ( any club , no club in particular ) was forcing the small shareholders into a sale they didn’t want ?
Re TRFC’ “Songbook” – reasonable article in to-day’s Times by Speirs calling for the TRFC Board to condemn bigotry & in particular , those “songs” .
He might also want to ask the SFA what they are going to do about it – still no statement from them re the last Glasgow Derby – extraordinary !
jean7brodieMay 5, 2017 at 22:03 (Edit)
AllyjamboMay 5, 2017 at 17:09______________________________________Sent you a PM AJ!!
______________
Jean, have checked my PMs and no message received.
naegreetinMay 6, 2017 at 08:25 (Edit)
Re TRFC’ “Songbook” – reasonable article in to-day’s Times by Speirs calling for the TRFC Board to condemn bigotry & in particular , those “songs” .He might also want to ask the SFA what they are going to do about it – still no statement from them re the last Glasgow Derby – extraordinary !
____________
I wonder if that was one of the topics in the friendly wee discussion between King and Regan, with King telling Regan, ‘no chance of cleaning up the songbook, or condemning the thugs, we can’t afford the drop-off in ticket sales!’ Though I doubt it would be put as nicely as that.
The bears seem extremely angry with their board for not condemning the Celtic players for daring to celebrate scoring at Ibrox, if the board spoke out against them, and that heinous songbook, then they could expect scenes at the next Ibrox defeat (against no matter who) even worse than the riots after the abandoned Hearts match!
Regan and the rest of the game’s governors have only themselves to blame for this mess, as it was they who allowed Green, and successive boards, to play to the most moronic section of the Ibrox support in their efforts to fill the stadium!
It seems to me that strict liability would be the answer to stop all the offensive singing & banners & flares. Points deduction would soon put a stop to it. But it’s the clubs who don’t want it! I have to admit I don’t know the ins and outs of it so what is the downside?
I have to say, I don’t think this headline is accurate, going by James Doleman’s tweets, and think it safest not to comment on it too much as it’s pretty much central to the case, but as a headline this must fly close to the wind in terms of contempt of court (whether accurate or not)! Must be the bravest headline, ever, though, in the Glasgow Herald (perhaps the whole of the Scottish media)!
“Rangers trial: Sir David Murray was aware of Craig Whyte ticket deal and was ‘comfortable’ with it”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15269207.FORMER_Rangers_was_aware_of_ticket_deal__jury_hears/?ref=ebln
Allyjambo May 6, 2017 at 09:56
I have to say, I don’t think this headline is accurate, going by James Doleman’s tweets ……
========================
The headline is accurate in so far as it was stated in court in the presence of the jury. However, for the readers, and the jury for that matter, it then has to be placed in context of who said it, to whom, and to what purpose.
The article states that it came from a letter from Liberty Capital to Ticketus, which was signed by Whyte. All that is factual.
Whether or not what was stated in the letter was true, is a matter for the jury to determine and assess how it fits in with all the other evidence that they will hear over the course of the trial. I don’t think there is any contempt involved and the headline writer has simply used the statement as an eye catcher.
NAEGREETINMAY 6, 2017 at 08:25 9 Votes
Re TRFC’ “Songbook” – reasonable article in to-day’s Times by Speirs calling for the TRFC Board to condemn bigotry & in particular , those “songs” .
He might also want to ask the SFA what they are going to do about it – still no statement from them re the last Glasgow Derby – extraordinary !
———————
30 recommendations….wonder how many have been implicated?
test
This should be fun Daryl Broadfoot ex SFA guest on Off the Ball. Will be interesting to hear how he spins Celtic getting 700 less seats than Aberdeen at Hampdump. so much for a 50/50 split.
Two things.
Firstly I was surprised but pleased to see Graham Spiers back page piece this morning.
I don’t personally think he goes far enough and agree and think he could indeed have “asked” The SFA about their position.
It is a start though.
I don’t think football will or even can address the issue on its own because fundamentally the divisions caused by the bigotry are an ongoing source of differentiation and recruitment with measurable positive effects on revenue streams for the blue club and also the other club who most benefits in recruitment and revenues for being the most different.
The real and only solution is to make it political and Ibrox is in the constituency of a fairly powerful female politician.
What are her views I wonder and what has she been doing about this cancer?
Secondly I wish there had been more coverage of today’s feeder leagues play off between East Kilbride and Buckie Thistle.
Following a 2-2 draw last week in Buckie (who were 2 up at one stage) it is a sell out today but you wouldn’t know it and also the other half of the equation in SPFL 2 could see 1 of three clubs drawing the short straw to play either Kilby or Buckie.
This is diddy football at its best with a family atmosphere and no sectarian chanting and we should celebrate this gateway into the big leagues.
In 2012, when TRFC challenged the transfer ban put together by the “who are these people?” judicial panel, it was reported that FIFA had demanded the SFA take action in response to TRFC’s court action (which FIFA frown upon).
I’m struggling to see if this was ever followed up.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13059822.SFA_fury_as_judge_throws_out_Rangers_transfer_ban/
easyJamboMay 6, 2017 at 10:59 (Edit)
In truth, EJ, I was more taken aback by the fearlessness of the headline, and though I was unable to read the full article, it was apparent that the writer was referring to the words within the letter, but, as we know, for a great many people who read newspapers, the headline says it all, even though the substance of the article is often the complete opposite! I originally included a mention of the letter but thought it best to avoid mentioning it, so deleted it.
Though I am sure no one will face contempt of court charges, I do think the headline, at least, has drawn a conclusion from the evidence presented, and one from evidence that I am sure is extremely germane to the case, ie did Rangers/Murray know that Whyte was funding the purchase via Ticketus? I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a certain knight of the realm is rather miffed at the Herald today! So well done to them
Big PinkMay 6, 2017 at 12:28 (Edit)
In 2012, when TRFC challenged the transfer ban put together by the “who are these people?” judicial panel, it was reported that FIFA had demanded the SFA take action in response to TRFC’s court action (which FIFA frown upon).I’m struggling to see if this was ever followed up.http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13059822.SFA_fury_as_judge_throws
___________________
It was probably followed up with an informal chat between Regan and whoever was playing the part of TRFC’s Chairman at the time! Seems to be the stringent way in which any problems surrounding TRFC’s participation in Europe are dealt with.
StevieBC
Perhaps the question to ask on DK meeting SR is not so much what was discussed but on whose authority was a meeting sanctioned and what was the objective?
SR does not operate without authority and that comes from the club’s. What direction are they giving SR in terms of dealing with a delinquent club?
Regan will not answer of course but Directors of SPFL clubs have supporters and shareholders who have the right to ask the question even if their club squirm out of a meaningful response.
In fact in the absence of clubs being questioned, how are they to know the feelings of their support on the apparent “do everything to ensure the survival of TRFC” no matter how unpalatable long term damaging that salvation might be?
With what is emerging in court it is clear supporters and shareholders have been misled by the SFA as well as what was Rangers FC since 1999, a period during which current TRFC or RIFC Board members held positions of authority at Rangers.
Is it the policy of other clubs to insult the intelligence of their supporters and depend on club loyalty to keep them supporting in the certain knowledge that they have been cheated from 1999 and those responsible are still involved in Scottish football?
Does anyone have a record of what then First Minister Alex Salmond said about Rangers being part of the social fabric of Scotland or words to that effect?
Is there any evidence he spoke to HMRC either?
I can well understand him doing so but that was before the sheer scale of skullduggery started to emerge.
It would be interesting to find out if he or his successor still hold the same view after the CW trial is over and if je/she thinks the SFA and SPL/SPFL have dealt correctly with the consequences since 2011.
AULDHEIDMAY 6, 2017 at 13:46
Does anyone have a record of what then First Minister Alex Salmond said about Rangers being part of the social fabric of Scotland or words to that effect?
Auldheid – Don’t know if this is any help?
hhttp://www.sfmonitor.org/hole-ever-deeper/?cid=9311
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/alex-salmond-and-rangers/
Mr Salmond was briefly interviewed on the BBC yesterday regarding the position of Rangers.
Below is a transcript of what he had to say.
“My appeal to Rangers and to HMRC is – can’t we agree on a sum that’s due and a means of paying it that allows Rangers to continue as an effective functioning football club in Scotland because Scottish football, even Celtic, needs Rangers. Scottish football needs Rangers.
“We want Rangers to survive and that should be a key goal and requirement prevailing on nut just Rangers, not just Craig Whyte, but HMRC as well.”
When asked about the need for regulation in football, he replied, “There are processes going on at the present moment.
“In the last few weeks I contacted both Rangers and HMRC, whose record in court is not particularly good at the present moment and I said once this Tribunal which is adjudicating on what genuinely owed – once that Inland Revenue Tribunal sets a sum – can’t that not be agreed as the sum that has to be paid and a time scale agreed to allow the club to pay it without going out of business.
“Now that seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition that would allow the Inland Revenue to get what they are due and allow Rangers to pay their obligations but continue as a vibrant part, not just of Scottish football, but of Scottish culture. I still think that is the best way forward.
“Perhaps people should concentrate on coming to an agreement and moving forward and keeping Scottish football intact with a great future.
“I want to see Rangers continue for the next century and more, contributing to the excitement and fun of Scottish football.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17067135
“Equally, they’ve got to have cognisance of the fact that we’re talking about a huge institution, part of the fabric of the Scottish nation as well as Scottish football, and everybody realises that.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13047583.There_should_be_no_deal_for_Rangers_with_HMRC/
“A man’s a man for a’ that” according to Robert Burns but not according to Alex Salmond.
If the man in question happens to be a representative of Rangers FC, Mr Salmond favours treating him as a “Scottish institution” who should be granted a “sensible arrangement” with the tax authorities in order to save the day. Would it be too cynical to mention the tradition of Union Flag waving at Ibrox? What a coup if he could convert that community to the independence cause.
Having spent all my working life as a wage earner, with every pound subject to PAYE, I shed no tears for an organisation which blatantly reduced the costs of employing expensive players by use of an employee benefits device, whether legitimate or not. I do, however, sympathise with the Rangers fan who was clearly tearful at the thought of his team going to the wall.
BIG PINKMAY 6, 2017 at 12:28 12 Votes
In 2012, when TRFC challenged the transfer ban put together by the “who are these people?” judicial panel, it was reported that FIFA had demanded the SFA take action in response to TRFC’s court action (which FIFA frown upon).
I’m struggling to see if this was ever followed up.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13059822.SFA_fury_as_judge_throws
——————————–
FIFA have also stepped in to the dispute, stating that they expect member associations to take “direct action” against clubs who take them to court.
A statement from FIFA read: “At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.
“In such a case, FIFA will ask the member association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.
“FIFA will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible.”
FIFA’s articles call for member associations to take “direct action” against clubs who seek redress before ordinary courts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9298583/Rangers-risk-fresh-sanctions-after-wnning-transfer-embargo-ruling.html
———————-
A statement from FIFA read: “At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.
—————-
I’m struggling to see if this was ever followed up.
I’m no supporter of Salmond but I was always of the opinion that he did what all well meaning (read vote seeking) politicians do which was to blithely call HMRC in ignorance of the quantum of tax outstanding and the conduct of Rangers towards, particularly, HMRC and more generally Scottish Football in the ten years previous and asked could they agree a sum (notice, contrary to popular myth he did not request any reduction) to which HMRC replied, equally correctly, “on your bike.”
whilst the institution stuff was clearly smoke blowing I never really understood why everyone got so hung up on his intervention.
@SMUGASMAY 6, 2017 at 16:18
It is ironic though that Salmond’s efforts had no impact on the bulk of their support who continue to chant their hatred of the SNP regularly at Ibrox. I believe a few of their support actually support the SNP but don’t seem embarrassed by this or the even nastier religious hatred (or should that be pseudo-religious as I don’t think any genuine religious feeling is behind it) that comes out even more frequently.
Listening to the radio and sharing the win of the red lichties , must commend the campbell brothers for their joyous involvement in footballing Fife. Congratulations gentlemen.
I see that the Soo’side Toreador intends to spend big in the summer. Are we to assume from that, that the safety netting is to be something special, and may even become a permanent fixture?
I wanted to post this when there was a discussion on the fit and proper the other week but never got round to it.
Here is how it was reported at the time.I will post just incase anyone is keeping a record of events and want to keep it
inside page
a better picture
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?
MUNGOBOYMAY 6, 2017 at 19:32 (EDIT)
Thanks for that insight, Mungoboy, I really wish I could make it along to the High Court to witness (but not be a witness
) the proceedings myself, for even if we could see a transcript of every word said, the way words are said can often be more telling than their literal meaning. Although a court case is never as dramatic as is portrayed on TV, I’m sure Donald Findlay, with the bit between his teeth, is well worth seeing.
I’d really enjoy seeing those high flying (in their minds) obnoxious smart-arses put in their place, and I’m sure he would love to do that very thing to a number of people involved in the death of his football club!
I know Radio Shortbread is much to be mocked but I still like Off the Ball despite some of their contribitutors. But at this time of night on a Saturday I love Take the Floor. It’s a lot more diverse than just Jimmy Shand type music – good as that is – I can’t believe it’s a highlight of my weekly schedule. A wind down from the football coverage on a Saturday especially after Celtic score 4 against St. J. (Sorry Stuart Cosgrove
.It makes me happy. Then there is the piping programme at 9 pm.
Well done Arbroath the team.
Our sair missed old pal, Red Lichtie will be happy.
Good to hear Essex speaking once again yesterday too.
SFM needs a strong Red Lichtie, Essex, Danish and others.
You can never have too many good guys on your team and we need them all.
SFM needs a strong Arbroath and we now have one.
Phil’s latest blog reiterates that as long as King remains on the RIFC board, there could be issues re: banking and card facilities and transactions.
Which logically leads onto the next question, IMO.
With the expected nonsense of TRFC being ‘linked’ with Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo, etc…
How is TRFC going to pay any transfer fee, or first instalment – and assuming they have available cash ?
Worst case: if TRFC was unable to effect a funds transfer via 1 or 2 FCA registered financial institutions would they have to consider…
Postal orders?
Traveler’s cheques?
A golf bag full of used notes ?
MUNGOBOYMAY 6, 2017 at 19:32
Allyjambo May 6, 2017 at 20:31
========================
It good that another poster has managed along to see the court in action. As MBM points out, being there and hearing the full questions and answers is different from relying on tweets, as you are totally reliant on the tweeters judgement about what they consider to be important points. The tweeters can easily end up missing the key words or be unable to convey the nuances of what has been said. I think that both James and the BBC guys are doing a great job to provide us with as much information as they have to date.
Here are JD’s tweets related to the Herald article and Findlay’s exchange with McGill
Jury being shown a letter from Liberty Capital to Ticketus from March 2011 signed by Craig Whyte
In the letter Whyte says the “current owner” of Rangers is aware of the finance plan
Adds “We will be repaying the Lloyd’s debt with the money we raise by selling tickets to you”
The current owner “is comfortable with it”
Whyte letter to Ticketus says they have asked David Murray to accept the role of “Life President of the club..he has accepted”
McGill says the letter is “untrue” apart from the “Life President” proposal.
And for comparison, David Henderson’s tweets
Crown production 58. Liberty capital letter. Dated 8.3.11. In end up to time of settlement In May. Signed by Craig Whyte.
Addressed to Ticketus 2 LLP for Ross Bryan. Re Glasgow Rangers fc – letter of clarification
Re continued discussing re acquisition of Glasgow RFC….we would like to set out status of financing plan
We have made the current owner aware that a 3rd party, though not explicitly Ticketus, will be facilitating the paying down of the Lloyds.. …debt. AP: is that your understanding. Absolutely not. Never seen this before.
We will be repaying the Lloyds debt with the money we raise by selling tickets to you in advance if and after we have acquired the club
Did you know? NO would you have agreed NO
Mike Mcgill there was never discussion of conversion of debt save only re tax case. AP is that a truthful statement ? Absolutely not
We have explained this structure to the current owner … AP: accurate? No
As you will see from the above David has provided more detail on the exchange, but hasn’t mentioned the word “comfortable” which was reported in the Herald. James has missed out the bit about repaying the Lloyds debt with the Ticketus money, which we bampots already accept as a given, so may have chosen not to mention it. However, David’s additional information “if and after we have acquired the club” could well be significant later in the trial. Note also that James has put some tweeted phrases in “quotes” so I’d expect these to be fairly accurate about what was actually said.
The Herald has made an implication that SDM was comfortable with the Ticketus deal, when the tweets suggest that SDM may well have been comfortable with 3rd party financing (although “not explicitly” from Ticketus). At least the jury have heard the exchange in full and may well be able to request sight of the letter if they want to review it as part of their deliberations.
I wouldn’t knock either James or David for what they have tweeted. They are both providing a great service to the public. Maybe it’s time we had a dedicated live Court TV channel for trials that are in the public interest.
EJ,
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 ?)
mungoboyMay 6, 2017 at 22:39
‘…If any of you guys can make it along there, I’d highly recommend it ( welcome back JC ?)’
____________________
Thank you,mungoboy.
There’s no action tomorrrow, I’ve got a visitor from the States to pick up and attend to on Tuesday
I’ll be able to attend on Wednesday, but only up to about 12.30-then I have to meet my Glasgow-based lunch-and-bevvy mates for the first time in six months at 1.00 pm.
It’s a bit of a bugger not being allowed to take the kind of notes I have been able to take in cases where there were no reporting restrictions!
But ,perhaps, like other ‘restricted’ attenders I might be able to flesh out the ‘official’ tweets here and there.
I have to say that I think James Doleman has done tremendously well and is to be thanked by all of us who tend to ready to discount any SMSM/BBC report.
”
“It’s fairly common as a manager to sense when a player is maybe a bit down and you have to have a word with him.
“The one thing I’ve learned in football, which I got from a life experience, is that silence is a death sentence in itself.
“The ability to communicate is vital. It’s no use trying to second-guess people.”
Brendan Rodgers, The Sunday Post, today. A Lenonn, God help him.
I have attended the Craig Whyte trial on a few occasions since it commenced. I tend only to attend when Mr Findlay is cross examining the witnesses. It is a joy to behold and is a gripping affair. I have nothing but praise for people like James Doleman and others who tweet live as there is so much detail going on at all times. Mr Murray and Mr Shanks from Lloyds are the witnesses I have watched being cross examined so far. My view at this early stage is that these witnesses have seemed at times very uncomfortable and during their time in the witness box and their testimony seems to be aiding in the defense of Mr Whyte, only IMO of course. I do recall that Mr Murray did not seem to recall quite a few thing when questioned (particularly in the content of Mr David Horne’s written notes and the third party funding paragraph in the final draft of the purchase.) and a few other things seemed to his mind. It was a ding dong affair with Mr Findlay and Mr Shanks concerning the terms leverage, threatening and pressure in relation to the bank and Mr Alistair Johnston on the RFC board. Mr Findlay certainly won that wee battle and basically IMO the jury where left in no doubt of the banks stance. It is funny to here terms coming from Mr Findlay and the way he says them like, shambles of a playing squad, little tax bill left unpaid (but intent to pay), health and safety of the stadium and then he stated that the board Mr Murray left to run RFC did not have a clue how to run a football club. It is the way he pauses and looks at the witness after making statements like that. Gripping stuff.
I will attend again at some point this week as it is like a magnet to me, and just to be able to hear witness evidence in court that we have always believed to have taken place and the smsm have never really addressed is karma. It is great to know that John Clark is going to attend when he can.
Smugas May 7, 2017 at 08:04
=================
I wasn’t making a judgement on the rights and wrongs of what Whyte stated in the letter. That’s for the jury. I only sought to explain how the Herald could have come up with their headline, based on what we knew from those who were tweeting live.
Hearing the first few days evidence, as the jury did, has obviously helped me form a view of how the case is being prosecuted and defended which I do think is open to discussion without being accused of prejudicing the proceedings. However, I’ve tried to avoid playing judge and jury as to Whyte’s innocence or guilt based on the evidence presented so far, nor have I expressed a view of what I want the outcome to be and I intend that to continue, at least on a public forum.
FinlochMay 6, 2017 at 21:44
Well done Arbroath the team.
Our sair missed old pal, Red Lichtie will be happy.
—————————————————————
Yessss! Scottish football has a strong Arbroath.
And good to here from EBC too.
Will that be a wee star on the Sevco jersey coloured in yellow to look like Kingsley….Or will they just add another one. ?
