After making inquiries into progress on Resolution 12 to the Celtic AGM of 2013 there is little doubt in my mind that the SFA made a serious error in the process of UEFA licensing.
Here are some facts:
- UEFA does not issue licences to clubs who have due tax bills outstanding,
- UEFA require the SFA to satisfy themselves of a club’s eligibility for a licence and that clubs have provided proof no overdue tax payable exists,
- UEFA also require a club to tell the SFA and UEFA if, after the issue of a licence there are material changes in their circumstances which would affect their eligibility – including the situation at #1 above,
- UEFA awarded Rangers a licence to play in European competition in March 2011,
- In May 2011 Rangers received a tax bill, which they did not contest or appeal or agree a payment plan. The bill (which remains unpaid) was overdue by 30 June 2011,
- UEFA received no notice of this,
- Rangers did not lose their licence and in fact competed in both the Champions’ League and The Europa League in that season.
None of these facts are disputed (as far as is known) by anyone connected to the saga. What is in doubt, because the SFA won’t answer the question, is whether they received a copy of the tax bill and the May letter that accompanied it from Rangers or not.
If they did send it to the SFA, Rangers could reasonably argue that they did their bit and the SFA fell down on the job by failing to notify UEFA of their new unfavourable tax status.
If Rangers did not send it, then they had broken not only UEFA FFP rules but more importantly the trust amongst SFA members that full disclosure is honestly made in a self-certification process. The SFA in not carrying out their monitoring responsibilities properly and using the powers UEFA FFP gave them also broke that trust.
In either case, there is a systematic failure by the SFA to administer the sport effectively; either through a failure of trust, a failure of administration – or both.
Even worse, in the four years that have elapsed since this incident, it seems that nothing has been done to put matters right. The SFA have been very active in refusing to answer questions on the matter, particularly this one;
“How will you prevent it happening again?”
Incredibly, up to now, no measures have been put in place to add rigour to the licensing process. Are they really saying that they think the process was carried out satisfactorily?
No they are saying nothing. Silence and denial, followed by silence and inaction.
So what is the point of this article? Let’s call out the elephant in the room right away – it is unequivocally not to have a go at Rangers. This is no longer really about Rangers at all, but about the SFA’s mal-governance of the game. Besides, clubs affected by this seeming failure on the part of the authorities (in that year Celtic, Dundee United and Hearts and Kilmarnock) are hardly likely to successfully sue a club now in liquidation (although small shareholders might take a different view with regard to the SFA’s conduct).
Nor am I seeking to find some retrospective punishment for the club (as far as I know sanctions are neither available retrospectively, nor useful in this case ) but to be aware that the question above urgently needs to be addressed if the status of football as a sport is to be maintained.
To the extent that this is about what has happened to Rangers, does anyone – no matter what club they owe their allegiance to – seriously consider that TRFC would NOT be in a better situation today had the SFA acted with propriety and applied their rules correctly in 2011/12?
With the kind of money on offer these days for entry into Europe, and the interdependent nature of the game, it seems fairly self-evident that trust is not enough to allow effective regulation, and that incompetent governance where money is the paramount consideration is unacceptable.
The SFA has long enjoyed a misconceived impression of its function as being that of a quasi-legal body, bestowing upon it a status of independence and aloofness from the partisan interest of the clubs. In the main, fans have largely bought into that myth. However the SFA is nothing of the kind.
It is in fact merely a cartel which is allowed to govern itself for its own benefit and is only accountable to the clubs that make up its membership, and not the fans. Check out the last sentences of almost any rule, where discretionary powers awarded to itself effectively render the rule worthless and unenforceable.
Literally, a nihilistic approach to governance
Maybe it is time the SFA scrapped the get out of jail discretionary clauses, and put some robust regulation in place to ensure the financial transparency of all clubs?
Even better, politicians are never slow to tell us of the importance of football to the social fabric of the country – in that case why not follow their own rhetoric, recognise that it cannot be allowed to self regulate in narrow self interest, and legislate to have football governed independently?
If I was a Rangers fan, I’d be thinking that the SFA’s failure to police the UEFA licencing issue helped accelerate the club’s demise – by making it easier to paper over the cracks.
If I was a Celtic, Hearts, Dundee United or Killie fan, well the consequences for them in terms of lost financial and competitive opportunities are fairly obvious.
Conclusion? The clubs can no longer be trusted to run the affairs of the industry themselves.
A new independent, accountable regulatory body (funded by the clubs) is the minimum we need to save the game in this country. It should comprise representatives of the clubs, the fans and other stakeholders – and it should have a holistic remit as its prime directive, whilst ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all clubs.
It can take decisions on the basis of what is good for the game without the baggage of self-interest, and without any west of Scotland institutionalised bias. Of course Scotland isn’t alone in this. Football is a powerful political force across the world, and as developments at FIFA over the past couple of years have demonstrated, it is institutionally corrupt. The clubs can no longer be allowed to run it as they see fit, and we need to begin a campaign which will ultimately convince the pay-at-the-gate fan of the truth of that.
The UEFA licensing issue is only a pebble in the sand of football incompetence and corruption, but it is a microcosm of what ails the game. The good of the sport, and not individual clubs, is paramount. The SFA cannot and will not deliver that.
The case for a new regulatory body is clear, and the status quo is not an option unless the death of the sport is deemed acceptable.
There is little doubt in my mind that unless regime change is effected, in a few decades there will be no regime .
Homunculus
I am referring to the pomposity of style not the content. There is a belief among some that such a style conveys an impression of intellectual and societal superiority, they are wrong.
Leggat is reprehensible both in content and style. Trust me I know plenty about his type of racism having been on the wrong end of many an example of it- I was nearly arrested once for the offence of having an Irish surname in the wrong part of Ayrshire. Times have changed but we still see references to Croy for example as terms of abuse. The day after Clyde put Celtic out of the cup there was an article about “quaint old Croy” which could have been straight from the 1920s.
Barcabhoy 11th October 2015 at 4:43 pm
I didn’t actually say they intended calling him, I have no idea either way. So please bear in mind I’m not arguing with you on this.
You are working on the basis that someone else actually has these documents, whether it be as paper copies / computer files, or whatever else. I don’t know if that’s the case, I’m not saying it is or isn’t, I have absolutely no idea.
However what I do know is that they are compelled to use “best evidence”. Basically if an original exists than that is what should be used. Copies can be used and there is a system for certifying them. However the basic principal is the use of best evidence and that is an original, or the copy closest to it.
One of the things a defence will do is to have as much of the evidence excluded as possible. If something cannot be led in Court then it didn’t happen (legally)*.
All I can really say is that if the advocata putting the case together things he needs this chap as a witness then there will be a reason for it.
*As an aside that is precisely what happened with LNS in my opinion. If certain evidence is not put before him then he does not have that to consider and that directly influences the decision. In addition. Mr B gave his evidence in such a way as to lead the enquiry down a certain path. Guilty but the punishment being a financial one rather than a “sporting” one.
Barca ,
they don’t need the William Stevenson guy who is Charlotte Fakes .
imo they used him as a means to access all the CF info so that they can use it in the big case ?
A means to an end IMO.
I think that there is a possibility that the defence may seek to have the CF leaks excluded as evidence as the information was obtained by illegal means.
An English judge previously ruled that the CF evidence could be heard under English Law (which normally allows all evidence, however obtained, to be considered). That is unlike US Law which takes almost the opposite view by excluding such evidence. From what I’ve read the Law in Scotland lies somewhere in between, but probably leans towards English Law by admitting it more often than not. However there have been cases where such evidence has been excluded.
The article below from Aberdeen University gives some background to the application of the Law in Scotland where evidence has been obtained by “irregular” means.
http://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/2164/41/1/040928-001.pdf
If, as has been suggested, no charges will be brought against the alleged CF, then it may be that the decision not to prosecute is designed to prevent a legal challenge against the inclusion of the CF evidence.
It is a pity that the late Paul McConville is not around to give us a heads up on all the legal issues surrounding the cases coming up. I’m sure he would be writing blog after blog on the subject.
bfbpuzzled 11th October 2015 at 4:55 pm
Fair point, thanks for the clarification.
Barcabhoy 11th October 2015 at 4:43 pm #Homunculus,
Still don’t see what CF could bring to a prosecution. The prosecutors surely can introduce any documents as evidence. They will have their own experts and possibly the web hosting companies to confirm authenticity.Why would they need CF ?
——————————————————————————————————-
A stab in the dark, but could CW be refusing access to the recordings? On the assumption it was him doing a pee of course.
I’m hypothesising when I asked the previous questions, as I have no experience or expertise in these types of matters.
The questions are
1 Would the prosecution have entitlement to the original information, which I presume is stored on some kind of cloud database by the web hosting company. Would the prosecution be able to compel the web hosting company to disclose this as it is a criminal case ?
Or
2 If no entitlement to original records is possible via the web hosting company, then are the CF records deemed to be as close to the original as possible and therefore potentially usable as evidence ?
Barcabhoy 11th October 2015 at 5:37 pm #I’m hypothesising when I asked the previous questions, as I have no experience or expertise in these types of matters.
——————————————————————————————————-
Ditto Barca, but it may be that CF’s evidence as to how they came to be in his hands offers them provenance.
It’s a good question though, and if the scenario being discussed is anywhere near reality, it may provide some outlook and perspective, as to what could possibly be happening behind closed doors.
Many have envisioned a situation where sooner or later someone will turn canary. It may be the opposite, and all of the accused have pacted to keep stumpff.
Here’s an interesting report from The Drum pertaining to what was admitted into evidence in the Jerome case, and why:
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/02/17/charlotte-fakes-material-ruled-admissible-28m-oldco-rangers-trial
Barcabhoy 11th October 2015 at 5:37 pm
Short answer, yes.
Slightly longer answer. The Police could get a Production Order (or a Warrant if that was deemed more appropriate). However what is to say that the material, (if it is stored online somewhere) is actually in Scotland. If it was to be in England it’s not much of an issue as the Order could be backed in an English Court, allowing it to be served there. However what if it was held in France for example. Crown Office would then need to request assistance from the relevant authority there. If it was in certain other countries then there would be little or no chance of getting it.
Re your next point, it would really depend on the circumstances I would have thought.
Returning matters to their most basic, am I the only one who, even subconsciously, had built an image of a glamourous shadowy Moll type in oor Charlotte only to find out it’s some random bloke called Bill!
Barcabhoy 11th October 2015 at 4:27 pm # Why would the Prosecution need CF as a witness ?
I presume they will have access to the original material and the ability to question those such as Whyte and Green on it’s veracity
__________________________________
A High court judge in England needed no such comfort. As all parties agreed it was truthful to be presented to the judge “as was” and compiled for him by I think BDO.
How would the judiciary here look prosecuting an effective witness from (ok a civil case) in England.
Whoever CF is they are now bombproof.
As the qualifying campaigns come to an end in the middle of the rugby world cup I wonder if there is anything our football authorities could learn from other sports and indeed other national football associations?
Northern Ireland have finished top of their group. Likewise Iceland. Albania have qualified for their first ever major finals. Wales have qualified for their first finals in 58 years. The Republic of Ireland are guaranteed a playoff place with at least an opportunity of getting to the party.
Football seems to be passing us by!
The technical side of the game is beyond us.
Let us be clear, we do not lack heart but we are lacking in the basics of the sport.
We do move but almost always in the wrong direction. Players hide behind the opposition where they cannot be found by a pass. We have very few players who can take a ball on the half turn, or facing the opposition goal, and be prepared to drive at defences, sucking in opposing players to enable colleagues to be played in. Most of our play develops sideways across the park………. back and forth, back and forth with no incisive movement. Going back to rugby this is relatively easy to defend as opposing midfields and defences just drift and pass players on until we run out of space and come back the same way, repeating the process all over again.
Most of our players receive the ball facing back towards our own goal. You simply cannot score a goal that way!
The basic control of a ball is sadly lacking also. Seeing a Scotland player comfortable on the ball is a rarity and a player with the ability to play a killer pass rarer but then again so few of our players have the movement to allow a killer pass to be played.
We spend time on this forum lambasting the so called powers in our game regarding their administration yet the infrastructure of our sport clearly has problems too. I’m not saying people aren’t trying, or indeed good at their jobs, but something is not right. We hold courses for people to get their coaching badges and they come from all over Europe to attend but they do not coach this way when they return to their own land. That is clear.
I would like to think that, after this latest failure, we will be holding a series of meeting to find out what we could do better and more importantly what we failed to do correctly. Knowing our administrators as I do the first thing will be a lack of a plane after the Georgia defeat or that there was no inflight peanuts however this post mortem must go further. The fundamentals of our sport are wrong and have been for most of my life. That was fine when most of the other countries were the same but with the rising finances, fitness, and technical advances both off and on the park we have been bypassed.
Managers ultimately carry the can for failure to qualify yet the administrators and the people at club and association level have not been developing the talent for any manager now for two decades at least. That is lamentable. You can hire and sack as many managers as you like but if the fundamentals, and the tools that he has to work with, remain unchanged then you should simply save the high wage and have a ballot of the tartan army and give the job to one of them.
After our failure to qualify for USA in 1994 I remember a committee of the great and good of our sport being assemble to create a new master plan/blueprint for the future. Twenty one years later I have never heard one word from that committee. That sums up our administrators; people caught in a time warp not looking to the future but harping back to the past. Like most things the past is past and it ain’t coming back.
If Strachan remains as Scotland manager we can rule out qualifying for the next world cup before the draw is even made. Any other international manager, after failing to qualify for the Euro’s and then facing Gibraltar, would have brought in a load of young players who are likely to make up the team over the next few years. Strachan fills it with guys who are looking towards the end of their international careers. Just look at the team that is playing – average age 28.9. This was a game made for bringing a young team trying to make a name for themselves at this level.
Strachan will not bring in new guys, time for him to go.
Homunculus
From memory the website was libertycapital.biz . Whois.com shows the domain as being a Godaddy site which is housed in the USA.
US courts generally are reluctant to hear cases where the defendent does not trade in the USA, if the same protocol is applied to criminal cases ( and I don’t know if that is the case ) then it’s unlikely an order will be issued
OT. Nice to see someone at the SFA, presumably, has grown a pair sufficiently to tell Adidas that the badge is a rampant red lion on a field of gold and not a silver one on blue. Or is it just because its red tracksuits on the “trifle” tops tonight??
Barcabhoy 11th October 2015 at 9:09 pm
If Crown Office need the evidence and it is in the USA then they will send an international letter of request to their counterparts in the USA.
It would then be a matter for the competent authority there to decide if it was appropriate for them to obtain and provide that evidence.
Strictly speaking it is actually the Court which is making the request, however in practical terms it is the Police who will request it through Crown Office and it will be Crown Office who decides whether the Court should be petitioned.
To get an idea of the scale roughly 150 such requests were sent out in 2014 for a range of offence.
Smugas 11th October 2015 at 8:04 pm #
‘…an image of a glamourous shadowy Moll type in oor Charlotte ‘
_______
You are not alone! I always had a wee notion it was one of the girls seen in one of the CF video clips!
Which reminds me of an entertaining TV episode, perhaps in the series known as “The Wednesday Play”.
The carriage in which three commuting business men on the train to central London is entered by an exceedingly attractive young woman.
There then follow three little films , each describing the little fantasy each of the men has; one has the girl as a secret agent who embroils him in dangerous work,, the other as a desperately fleeing witness to a crime , and the third , well, something else. All very innocent, and when the train reaches Waterloo, all three chaps are relieved/disappointed to find that the woman is being met by her husband and a couple of kids!
I listened earlier this afternoon to a repeat of BBC Radio 4’s “File on 4” programme on the theft of 12% of Moldova’s GDP, featuring the infamous flat in Edinburgh where over 400 companies are registered.
Do download the podcast. The programme is about 38 minutes long, and gets right into the staggering inability of the authorities to check that ‘due diligence’ is done on shell companies, and the uselessness of Companies House, and the lack of interest of HMRC etc etc.
Really good piece of investigative reporting that utterly shames our SMSM who couldn’t or daren’t ‘investigate’ a wee ( relative to international companies) football club.
justshatered 11th October 2015 at
As the qualifying campaigns come to an end in the middle of the rugby world cup I wonder if there is anything our football authorities could learn from other sports and indeed other national football associations
Football seems to be passing us by!The technical side of the game is beyond us.
=======================================
On the technical side of things there was a wee interview recently with Ryan Gauld who explained that one of the things he needed to improve in order to break into the Sporting Lisbon first team was the technical side of his game……
Anyone who has seen Gauld play would agree that he is one of the most naturally talented young players to have emerged in Scotland in recent years.
We are years behind almost every other European country in this respect and it will take a gargantuan effort by the governing body and the clubs to turn this around.
Do they have the inclination and willpower to effect this change?
JC
Calm down.
The 0734 to Waterloo is rammed, the busiest train in Europe.
You can see folk in great detail as you are usually jammed face to face with them , no need to fantasise.
The English quickly get round to hating each other on these Waterloo trains. The writer must be from a totally different planet to romanticise this scenario.
ianagain 11th October 2015 at 10:04 pm #
‘…The writer must be from a totally different planet to romanticise this scenario.’
_____
Aw, gie’s a brek, ianagain!
‘The Wednesday Play’ series was in the middle 1960s, and it might not have been a commuter train, and it might have been outward bound from London ( in fact,it must have been if the woman was being met by hubby and kids, come to think of it).
The spiritual essence of the thing needn’t be cribb’d, cabined and confined by mere facts- any more than the essence of a football club.
Well that’s another Euro campaign over and no Scotland team in France next year. I was so looking forward to going to France next year with my boys, could still go but it wont be the same. Looking at the tables tonight Scotland had the largest number of points for a 4th placed team ( if I’d read things correctly ) so that I would say is an improvement and we must see that as a positive. We scored more goals than the Irish but we let in more, we have great keepers but we really need to look at our defence. When the World Cup Qualifying comes round we need to get this right. What continues to frustrate me is how we manage to lose or draw the games we shouldn’t and I think we need to look at our mindset and how we play when we go into these type of games. There will be a few in the World Cup qualifying campaign.
If Strachan doesn’t stay who do we get and who could improve the pool of players we have, there is only one man I can think of and he’s retired.
John Clark 11th October 2015 at 10:18 pm # ianagain 11th October 2015 at 10:04 pm #‘…The writer must be from a totally different planet to romanticise this scenario.’_____Aw, gie’s a brek, ianagain!‘The Wednesday Play’ series was in the middle 1960s, and it might not have been a commuter train, and it might have been outward bound from London ( in fact,it must have been if the woman was being met by hubby and kids, come to think of it). The spiritual essence of the thing needn’t be cribb’d, cabined and confined by mere facts- any more than the essence of a football club
—————————————————————
JC Sorry for that.
Ah the old slam doors and the compartment wi the slide doors. Perfectly imaginable.
Many old railway guards could scribe books on what went on in there.
Homunculus 11th October 2015 at 9:33 pm #
‘..If Crown Office need the evidence and it is in the USA then they will send an international letter of request to their counterparts in the USA. ‘
______
By coincidence, I heard on RTE radio this afternoon that the Irish request to the US for the extradition of the guy mentioned in the piece below might conceivably be refused if the US court decides that the guy might not get a fair trial because he has been absolutely slated for the last couple of years.Everybody ‘knows’ he is guilty!
A smart, chance-your-arm defence team might move to prevent the US providing ‘evidence’ by dreaming up some similar ‘no fair trial possible’ scenario.
Or is that a fantasy too far?
Here’s the RTE report, just for general interest in a matter that we here were greatly interested in in the Goodwin RBS scene:
“Former Anglo Irish Bank CEO David Drumm has been arrested in the United States on an extradition warrant.
The Government had requested his return to Ireland to face criminal proceedings here.
Mr Drumm has been living in the US since 2009.
RELATED AUDIO & VIDEOWatch: Former Anglo CEO David Drumm arrested in US
He filed for bankruptcy in Boston with debts of €10.5m – mostly owed to the former Anglo Irish Bank.
His bankruptcy application was rejected earlier this year with the presiding judge finding that he had “knowingly and fraudulently” sought to keep assets from his creditors by transferring cash and other property, worth around €1m, to his wife.
His appeal against that ruling is currently before the US courts.
In January of this year, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland sent a file to the US authorities requesting Mr Drumm’s extradition, to face up to 30 charges following a joint investigation by the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.
That file was assessed by the US Department of Justice and an extradition warrant was issued.
US Marshals arrested Mr Drumm in Massachusetts late yesterday.
He is currently in custody in Boston where he will remain until a court hearing on Tuesday.”
A few posts above, berrty raised the point about Gordon Strachan sticking with older players. Tonight, with around 15-20 mins left and Scotland cruising 4-0 up in a meaningless game, he chose to sub on the tried and tested Fletcher and Naismith rather than giving Shinnie a run out. Shinnie was the only outfield player available for both games this week who got no game time.
It was a mind-numbing decision. This was the perfect moment to give Shinnie some international experience and to see what he do at this level. What on earth was the point in bringing him along otherwise? Why put on the 2 experienced players – to try and grab another couple of meaningless goals? It tells me all I need to know about Strachan’s mindset. I really have lost patience with him.
southstandcharlie 11th October 2015 at 10:48 pm
The point about not putting on the novices or less experienced is something that used to do my nut in when my boys played football. Their team would be 4-0 nothing up but would the coaches put on the boys who never got games, nope, only the regular favourites, used to rip ma knitting.
Thanks for those enquiries folks. I’ll start responding by e mail during Monday.
briggsbhoy 11th October 2015 at 11:07 pm #
‘.. but would the coaches put on the boys who never got games, nope, only the regular favourites, used to rip ma knitting.’
_____
I don’t suppose there’s a football dad in the whole of Scotland ( except the dads of the ‘favoured’) who hasn’t experienced that situation!
The gift of being able to identify potential is a very, very rare talent.
And maybe hundreds of Messi’s and Lewandowskis have been missed because their essential ability wasn’t recognised by school/ youth coaches geared to a particular categorisation of ability. Or maybe favouritism, pure and simple!
But all of us who played football at any level know from experience that that wee boy Wullie who, the last time we looked, was a bloody liability , can turn into a dependable, seasoned player.
Or even better, turn into a ‘goal machine’, as my younger son’s team-mates in Brisbane Celtic described him to me on the occasion of his wedding some years ago.
southstandcharlie 11th October 2015 at 10:48 pm #
‘..Why put on the 2 experienced players ..’
_____
Why else but to give them appearance money,or whatever it’s called?
We do have to remember the commercial realities.
Just as we have to keep in mind that there have been been players whose attitude to being selected for ‘Scotland’ was to raise two fingers in derision, but who were subsequently ‘rehabilitated’.
It makes me grue, the recollection of that disgraceful, utterly disgraceful incident.
Who does this kind of judicial assessment bring to mind?
This is the wiki reference to the chap that I mentioned in an earlier post:
“In a 122 page ruling, the judge found Drumm was “not remotely credible”, his conduct “both knowing and fraudulent”, and accused Drumm of telling “outright lies”.[3]
Hasn’t quite the same ring as the SA court’s description of DK as a ‘glib and shameless liar’, has it?
John Clark 12th October 2015 at 12:27 am
If indeed appearance money is the reason Fletcher and Naismith were subbed on then it is an even poorer decision by Strachan. Players in the EPL are already paid obscene amounts of money and if experienced / favoured players are being fielded simply to give them some extra cash for their trouble rather than developing future players for the team it a shameful situation.
And such a strategy does nothing to encourage players to stay with Scottish clubs, as if the relative wage levels were not enough of a problem. Any promising player still in Scotland, including Shinnie, must watch in despair as the English based players get favoured in every way. However I get the impression Strachan has no real concern for Scottish club football. I would be very interested to see statistics on how many and which Scottish club games he, or McGhee, have attended since they started managing the national team.
Surprising amount being written about upcoming trials almost everywhere. A confusion of voices for me. But I try to keep up. Was very interested to read a few things on Auldheid’s timeline yesterday regarding a certain Mr Dickson. Now there’s a character who turns up in so many different places in this story.
My 2 kroner to the Euro2016 campaign — one of our best in many a year. Entertaining football, some stunning performances, but one really bad night in Georgia. In reality, we were very close to automatic qualification. Not too bad considering the strength of Poland and Germany.
To be honest, I’m a bit disappointed by the negativity aimed at the team and Strachan. It’s an ‘end of the beginning’ not the beginning of the end for him, hopefully. Last night was a real lift, especially for those fans. Long time since I’ve seen 2-3-5 formation. It’s a bit petty to criticise ‘old’ Darren Fletcher being brought on to get his milestone 70th cap. The guy has been there for Scotland at all times. Who knows if he’ll play for country again? But there’s little doubt that these ‘old’ players are going to play some part in the next campaign, espcially since England are on the menu. I expected mis-firing Steven Fletcher off at half time but WGS stuck with him and look what happened. Appearance fees? Whits that aboot?
Almost a year to go before next competitive match. Plenty of time to get younger players in via friendlies or get-togethers.
Btw, Denmark are in the play-offs after a pretty indifferent qualifying run and ending up with a mere 12 points. Sport isn’t always fair 🙂
http://t.co/g6bBeMJLeb
Article in the Guardian proving conclusively that Blatter and Platini believe that everyone else has a head that buttons up the back.
“1.35m payment to Michel Platini: there was no written contract• President Sepp Blatter and Platini tell investigators payment agreed orally”
Are the SFA still backing Platini for President of FIFA? I think we should be told.
Much as I feel the same frustration about the selection for Gibralta I can’t believe for 1 minute that appearance money was in Strachans thoughts at all.
Much more likely I think is that Strachan saw the final game in the campaign as an opportunity to give a few of his guys a thank you in the form of a further cap, a win for the stats, and the prospect of some goals as well.
Guys like Brown and D Fletcher we played to add to their stats IMO.
S Fletcher & Naismith were played to inflate his goal stats (which this campaign have hidden a lot I think since nearly all his goals were against Gibralta)
When we are being critical we do have to keep in mind that the squad was already chosen and there was little point calling up more players and upsetting the guys already in the squad for such a pointless football match.
So the only real criticism I would make in this case is that I think Johnny Russell should started before S Fletcher and G Shinnie should have started before S Brown.
TBH I think Strachan has been too loyal in his selections the last few months and this was the cause of the problems in Georgia. I don’t see how S Brown can possibly have been worth his selextion in that game as he has been very very poor this season. S Fletcher shouldn’t have played either – I’d personally have let Griffiths loose against Georgia.
In short the selection criticism shouldn’t be for the meaningless Gibralta game so much as for the selection in the very important Georgia game – and thats where he got it completely and utterly wrong.
@Matty, Griffiths, among others, withdrew from the squad. Maybe just aches and pains or real injuries? So a few people were unavailable due to call-offs.
Danish Pastry 12th October 2015 at 8:54 am
“Almost a year to go before next competitive match. Plenty of time to get younger players in via friendlies or get-togethers.”
I couldn’t disagree more. International matches are few and far between, particularly non-vital ones. While I appreciate Darren Fletcher has been a fine and loyal player for Scotland over the years, I’m sure even he would appreciate the over-riding need to look start planning for the next campaign as soon as possible. Particularly as this one ended in failure. If Strachan wanted to give him a run out and a thank you for his service, he could have put him in the starting line up. Once the score was comfortable was the time to give the new boys a decent 2nd half run out. Naismith will probably feature in the next campaign and rightly so. So can anyone provide any justification for giving him the last 15 mins rather than a new boy?
Other than Stachan wanting to make his personal performance stats look better at the expense of forward planning and the future needs of the team……..
Matty Roth 12th October 2015
Danish Pastry 12th October 2015
Of course calls offs could be a result of not seeing the point in travelling (ala S Fletcher) or getting a call from your club to get back home ASAP as opposed to wasting more time!!!!
For what its worth I think Strachan has a good handle on the way in which the game should be played at international level.
Where I believe he falls down is his belief that his ‘old-school’ man management approach actually works. That is then compounded by the silly decisions made by the SFA
The key games in the qualifying campaign were Ireland and Georgia away.
After beating the Irish at home we appeared to be on an up. Therefore what better way to destroy confidence than play England a few days later in a meaningless friendly.
We were then fairly bland against Northern Ireland in that friendly and then showed a total lack of concentration by conceding an early goal to Gibraltar at home. (Not too dissimilar to Lewandowski’s the other night but down our left flank right.)
Not sure what the point of the Qatar game was but we were poor that night as well when you would expect other teams to maybe knock in two or three just for the sheer hell of it.
Where was the ‘oomph factor’ that was needed for the upcoming Irish game. Writing on the wall IMHO therefore a need to do something about it in the few days prior to Dublin. However when we get there (and remember the Aviva was full of more Scots than the ticket allocation) another bland and lacklustre performance against an agricultural team that were there for the taking and we somehow managed to escape with a draw via a lucky goal.
More warning signs but we end up going to Georgia – poor again with no shots of target which is just as good as Levein’s 4-6-0 formation.
All down from there on.
All I see is a team that fails to look ‘up for it’ in games we should be winning with ease. It has been that way for a long time so Strachan is just another in a line of Scottish Managers who just don’t seem to have the means of motivating teams when it really matters. Or is it they just don’t understand how to deal with situation or use whatever methods are available these days.
As discussed the other day the games against the teams from the higher pot appear to take care of themselves but for heaven’s sake can we start preparing meticulously for ensuring we get maximum points from those below you and those who you believe are on a par with.
http://www.allmediascotland.com/press/109607/the-media-in-figures-sales-of-national-newspapers-in-scotland-2/
September circulation figures for purely Scottish newspapers, showing rise/fall over last 12 months- Daily Record down 11.2%, Sunday Mail down 13%, Sunday Post down 10.9%.
All other Scottish newspapers are treated as “regional”, and feature in a separate 6 monthly circulation report. However I guess that the figures for the Scotsman and the Herald are just as bad, if not worse.
Yes indeed, all to my point; I can’t see why people are boiling over with the Gibralta team selection.
It was an utterly meaningless match against a team that doesn’t even present a worthwhile test of any of the younger players.
Our focus should be on why such poor selections were made for the last few competitive games when Strachan stuck with some players based on last seasons form. That backfired badly when those players completely failed to turn up in Georgia.
(my reference to Griffiths was related to the Georgia game, not sure I made that clear)
Wottpi, I tend to agree.
I think the problem is the players are in fear of failure against any side they are expected to beat.
It seems to me the players are simply not able to handle that pressure and approach all of those games with trepidation.
I think Strachan got quite a bit right, but a few things badly wrong at key times and then of course the players have let him down in key games.
neepheid 12th October 2015 at 9:10 am #http://t.co/g6bBeMJLeb
Article in the Guardian proving conclusively that Blatter and Platini believe that everyone else has a head that buttons up the back.
“1.35m payment to Michel Platini: there was no written contract• President Sepp Blatter and Platini tell investigators payment agreed orally”
Are the SFA still backing Platini for President of FIFA? I think we should be told.
============================
Maybe there was a Five Way Agreement, but it’s secret and they’re not telling?
It does look and smell similar to Longmuir’s mysterious SFL bonus, to give it a Scottish perspective. Did we ever find out the full story behind that?
The appointment of Regan has shown that just changing the man at the top does not change the organisation’s culture, and if it has a culture of corruption then Blatter/Platini is just a side-show. As with the SFA, there needs to be a root and branch restructuring of FIFA.
Be careful what you wish for though, the FA was restructured and we ended up with the EPL after they made a land grab from the FL.
Just a thought with the hearing just a few days away, and assuming the decision is in Green’s favour.
I believe that TRFC/RIFC will only be liable for Green’s legal costs if he is found not guilty, though, that could mean TRFC retain their assets (Ibrox, MP…), so it could be seen as a lose/win scenario for the club.
But what happens if he is found guilty? Is it the case that TRFC have all monies paid to Green’s legal team returned? Are they only billed at the end of the case, or will they have to make periodic payments? Would any periodic payments be made directly to the legal team, or to a ‘clients account’ until a verdict is reached.
What I’m actually wondering is, if the monies are paid to the various legal firms, and are clearly their legitimate costs so their’s to keep, will the club, assuming it has limped along to this point, have all monies instantly returned from the legals, or will they have to pursue Green, who is hardly likely to be able to pay it, in full at least? In this scenario they could well lose the cost of the legal fees and the assets. So lose/lose for the club.
I wonder, too, if it is possible for the accused involved around the ‘asset purchase’ to be found not guilty of any criminal offence, but enough evidence emerging to give BDO an unassailable case to claim the assets for the creditors in a civil suit? In this case the double whammy of losing the legal fees and the assets would hit the club! Again, a lose/lose result for the club.
In these scenarios, it really would need a very rich sugar daddy, with a desire to lose oodles of cash, for TRFC to hang around that long.
A company with in excess of £9m debt, possibly only a fraction of that in assets, needing, at least, a further £5m in loans to see out the next 7 months followed by year on year higher costs than income, and unknown (other than very high) legal expenses to meet, would surely be a goner in any other field of business.
Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 2:06 pm #
‘..Would any periodic payments be made directly to the legal team, or to a ‘clients account’ until a verdict is reached. ‘
_____
It’s maybe more likely that Green, as the client, has assured his legal team that he personally has the wherewithal to pay, win or lose.And, if he wins, then he recoups the dosh from the club.
It would be a gey reckless QC who would not make damn sure he would get paid,whatever! Unless QCs are also in the game of ‘no win,no fee’ played by the ambulance chasing brigade.
The Cat NR1 12th October 2015 at 2:06 pm #neepheid 12th October 2015 at 9:10 am #http://t.co/g6bBeMJLebArticle in the Guardian proving conclusively that Blatter and Platini believe that everyone else has a head that buttons up the back.“1.35m payment to Michel Platini: there was no written contract• President Sepp Blatter and Platini tell investigators payment agreed orally”Are the SFA still backing Platini for President of FIFA? I think we should be told.============================Maybe there was a Five Way Agreement, but it’s secret and they’re not telling?
It does look and smell similar to Longmuir’s mysterious SFL bonus, to give it a Scottish perspective. Did we ever find out the full story behind that?
The appointment of Regan has shown that just changing the man at the top does not change the organisation’s culture, and if it has a culture of corruption then Blatter/Platini is just a side-show. As with the SFA, there needs to be a root and branch restructuring of FIFA.Be careful what you wish for though, the FA was restructured and we ended up with the EPL after they made a land grab from the FL.
——————-
i,m sure I read on here, that a certain friend of Mr Murray’s, who was previously player/manager of Rangers, who then went to become manager of Newcastle many years later, was the recipient of either a ‘payment’ or an EBT from Rangers, whilst he was at Newcastle and the original poster said this raised some questions that needed to be answered !?
were the questions ever ‘answered’ ?
should FIFA investigate ?
Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 2:06 pm
Ally, If it is the case (I am unsure) that Green’s fees will only be met on returning a “Not guilty” verdict, the most sensible approach would be for both parties to post a bond prior to legal fees being accrued.
Then when the case is summed up, one party has the bond returned, and the other has the fees deducted from it. I doubt such an approach will be adopted though.
Funnily enough, If a not guilty verdict is returned, and Green’s fees total X amount, but RIFC/TRFC, lock stock and penalty spot flogged, only realises Y amount. would he then become a creditor, shafted for a p in the £ return. There would be something poetic in that.
Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 2:06 pm #Just a thought with the hearing just a few days away, and assuming the decision is in Green’s favour.
I believe that TRFC/RIFC will only be liable for Green’s legal costs if he is found not guilty …
================================================
Do you have some reason for thinking this. Surely if he is contractually entitled to have legal costs paid, including criminal cases then that is what he is entitled to. If it says that is on the assumption that he is found not guilty within that agreement then fair enough. However I haven’t read the agreement and I haven’t seen anything to suggest that condition is in there.
If Green were cleared of all charges then surely his costs would be met by the prosecution anyway?
Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 2:06 pm
I wonder, too, if it is possible for the accused involved around the ‘asset purchase’ to be found not guilty of any criminal offence, but enough evidence emerging to give BDO an unassailable case to claim the assets for the creditors in a civil suit? In this case the double whammy of losing the legal fees and the assets would hit the club! Again, a lose/lose result for the club.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What a mess
Oldco could own the Stadium and the right to call themselves “Rangers the Club” despite having no fans or players
Newco would own the players but can`t call themselves “Rangers the Club”despite a fan base who were told otherwise
The 5 way Agreement would be meaningless if TRFC can`t call themselves “Rangers the Club”
The LNS rulings would be questionable since titles cannot be inherited or stripped from an entity that has no claim to call itself “Rangers the Club”
The UEFA licence issue would lose the fig leaf of being buried in a liquidation
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
For the gullible to maintain the fiction of continuity the only way out may be the DCK idea of a merger between TRFC and Rangers(2012)plc.
Unfortunately this is not feasible in the immediate term
HMRC can prevent BDO from doing anything until it has exhausted the appeal process. In addition the idea of a convicted tax cheat getting any favours from Hector simply beggars belief
The only certainty is that the current paralysis will continue until the legal process has run its course. This will be at least two seasons and possibly more
To keep the fiction going in the meanwhile the rich RRM( if there are any still around) might have to set up a completely new company and football club).This would be proclaimed not as “Rangers the Club” but some kind of true blue ethereal “thingy” awaiting the end of the legal process.
A merger with another club may be a possibility
Matty Roth 12th October 2015 at 1:59 pm
And we have been like that for years Matty. So that’s why I ask if Strachan, for all his bluster and smart talk with the press, is (like those who went before) really using everything available to the Scotland Manager to prepare his teams.
Before Georgia he was telling the press he was able to sniff out who was ‘ready’ on the training field –
“I’m kind of old-fashioned: I just use my eyes,” said Strachan. “You tend to have a look at them in training and usually you sniff it from there, the body language and other things. It isn’t heart rate monitors and I don’t have a sports scientist or a sports psychologist to work this out.
Looks like he had a cold.
neepheid 12th October 2015 at 9:10 am #http://t.co/g6bBeMJLeb
Article in the Guardian proving conclusively that Blatter and Platini believe that everyone else has a head that buttons up the back.
“1.35m payment to Michel Platini: there was no written contract• President Sepp Blatter and Platini tell investigators payment agreed orally”
…
=======
Oh so cynical, nh !
Of course we know an oral contract can be legally binding…and both parties could easily forget about an oral contract… for 10 years or so…until Blatter suddenly remembered to have the outstanding payment processed to Platini…mibbees…
Next question: what other ‘oral liabilities’ for FIFA has Blatter forgotten about ?
Could Souness be up next for a FIFA payment – for consultancy work whilst also Rangers and/or Newcastle manager ?
Yes, the FIFA farce continues…
jimlarkin 12th October 2015 at 2:37 pm
As I understand it 4 Rangers managers, or former managers received payments via EBTs. In Souness’ case he got the payment about 10 years after he left, and was at Blackburn at that time.
Alex McLeish £1.7m,
Dick Advocaat £1.5m
Paul Le Guen £201,250
Graeme Souness £30k
John Clark 12th October 2015 at 2:21 pm # Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 2:06 pm #‘..Would any periodic payments be made directly to the legal team, or to a ‘clients account’ until a verdict is reached. ‘_____It’s maybe more likely that Green, as the client, has assured his legal team that he personally has the wherewithal to pay, win or lose.And, if he wins, then he recoups the dosh from the club. It would be a gey reckless QC who would not make damn sure he would get paid,whatever! Unless QCs are also in the game of ‘no win,no fee’ played by the ambulance chasing brigade.
_______________________
Sorry, JC, but by ‘clients account’ I meant an account designated ‘Client’ account, which is the designation solicitors and such must give to bank accounts held on behalf of their – clients
By law, any business that takes funds from customers, to be held on the customers’ behalf, must lodge them in accounts designated for that customer, and cannot use them for their own use. It is, I would imagine, what people have been thinking of when talking of ‘escrow’ accounts. Sadly, they are, or were in my banking days, accessible by the solicitors etc, and all too often used illegally/improperly.
Personally, I cannot imagine any solicitor will work on the basis of receiving payment only once a case is settled (especially this one), and may well look for payment in advance, though on a monthly or quarterly basis. I doubt, too, that Green will pay his legal team himself on the assumption that TRFC/RIFC will have the money to pay him should he be found innocent. We can’t even be certain Green hasn’t put his booty out of the reach of even the legal system, so won’t be keen to pay up ahead of a verdict, in case he loses!
In short, it’s all part of the massive uncertainty surrounding the club, and can only add to the prospects of another insolvency, and possible death, at Ibrox.
This might help?
http://www.fsp-law.com/articles/not-guilty-but-at-what-cost
“Nigel Evans has recently been found not guilty of all the criminal charges brought against him, but is out of pocket by £130,000. Why can’t he get that back? Tim Child explains.”
How ironic.
Corrupt official 12th October 2015 at 2:42 pm # Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 2:06 pm Ally, If it is the case (I am unsure) that Green’s fees will only be met on returning a “Not guilty” verdict, the most sensible approach would be for both parties to post a bond prior to legal fees being accrued. Then when the case is summed up, one party has the bond returned, and the other has the fees deducted from it. I doubt such an approach will be adopted though. Funnily enough, If a not guilty verdict is returned, and Green’s fees total X amount, but RIFC/TRFC, lock stock and penalty spot flogged, only realises Y amount. would he then become a creditor, shafted for a p in the £ return. There would be something poetic in that.
________________________________________
I doubt anyone would accept a bond from either Green or RIFC/TRFC as doubt over their ability to meet it would be massive (bonds are often/usually guaranteed by banks, but never for a company they wouldn’t give borrowing facilities to
). I also doubt that Green will be going with his legal team of choice if RIFC/TRFC win and don’t have to cover his fees, unless he knows he is innocent, of course, and is confident a top advocate will be able to make the jury see this.
One thing’s for sure, Green’s legal team, before the case starts, will want to know they are going to get their money, whatever the verdict.
Allyjambo & Homunculus
my reading of the IPO document was that Green is unequivocally entitled to legal fees, the element relating to guilt seemed to me to refer to any fine or liability ( which I took to mean compensation) not being payable by the company if it was levied directly on Green.
Essentially the company has to cover all legals, regardless of outcome, but if he is fined or forced by the court to pay compensation , for that part of it , he’s on his own.
y4army 12th October 2015 at 3.26pm
There is a long answer and a short answer to your question.
The long answer is “No”.
There are any number of unknowns swirling around but one known is that in Scotland the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service do not pay anything towards the cost of a Defence regardless of the outcome.
This is, of course, subject to the proviso that Sandy Bryson is not appointed Lord Advocate before Friday.
Barcabhoy 12th October 2015 at 4:20 pm
That makes absolute sense to me.
There is the possibility of a fine in addition to a potential term of imprisonment. Also the potential matter of confiscation under POCA 2002 Section 3.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/part/3
Barcabhoy 12th October 2015 at 4:20 pm # Allyjambo & Homunculus
my reading of the IPO document was that Green is unequivocally entitled to legal fees, the element relating to guilt seemed to me to refer to any fine or liability ( which I took to mean compensation) not being payable by the company if it was levied directly on Green.
Essentially the company has to cover all legals, regardless of outcome, but if he is fined or forced by the court to pay compensation , for that part of it , he’s on his own.
_____________________________
That might very well mean TRFC’s future rides on the outcome of Friday’s hearing! It has been mooted, by JJ in particular, that the club have no chance of winning the case and so the wisdom of contesting the claim has been questioned. It may well be explained as a ‘last chance saloon’ scenario as the possibility of Green losing, and so the club don’t have to pay, has been removed from our musings. If getting McCoist off the payroll brought some relief, things could get very much worse on Friday.
Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 4:42 pm
It would also be a handy wee excuse for the bears.
I’m sure it wouldn’t take to much to convince them that it’s Green’s action which put the club in jeopardy. As opposed to say King’s inability to raise enough funds, or put them in himself.
We had millions set aside for running costs but now …
From DR article today;
“…Ricky Sbragia’s U21 squad are set to face Iceland and while the Nordic nation have seen a huge turnaround in their fortunes thanks to a widespread overhaul of their football infrastructure and coaching system in the early 2000s, the Scotland coach has admitted he doesn’t know what their success is down to.
…
[Sbragia] “I presume and I might be wrong that a lot of their players play in Europe, I think that would help them as well but I think time will tell.”
…
[BUT]
In Iceland’s 20 man squad, 11 of the players play their club football in Iceland, with most of the others playing in Norway and Denmark and one in the Netherlands with PSV’s second string team…”
=================
Ignorance at the SFA is bliss it seems.
I would start by trying to hire the Icelandic national team management of Lars Lagerback & Heimir Hallgrimsson, [even after the Euros ?].
I would also try to identify who the real ‘rainmaker’ is at the Iceland FA, and then try to recruit that person also – and perhaps their support team ?
Iceland has a population of c.300,000 !
How much lost revenue to the Scottish game has the SFA ‘achieved’ since 1998 ?
Barcabhoy
“my reading of the IPO document was that Green is unequivocally entitled to legal fees, the element relating to guilt seemed to me to refer to any fine or liability ( which I took to mean compensation) not being payable by the company if it was levied directly on Green.”
———————————————————————-
This is the passage that I can find in the AofA and it relates to criminal proceedings:-
“other than a fine imposed in such proceedings, or a liability incurred in defending proceedings in which the director is convicted and the conviction is final”
———————————————————————-
Given the wording, couldn’t a liability be a debt incurred that related to the cost of his/her defence.
Further musings on the possible outcome of the upcoming criminal trial.
Should the assets, Ibrox and MP, end up in the hands of BDO on behalf of the creditors, will TRFC be due rent for the period they have used property they did not own?
Had TRFC been created in a more open way, but unable to raise the capital to pay a fair price for the assets, leaving the heritable property in the hands of BDO to be disposed of at a later date, it is conceivable that the new club would/could have rented the properties, thus providing income for the creditor pot, perhaps with a view to purchase, at least, Ibrox after, say, an IPO.
Probably no more than yet another example of the problems, and uncertainty, ahead for TRFC, but I’m sure that any other form of business, at a point where assets and liabilities probably equate, with no real possibility of income outstripping costs for quite some time to come, facing all this uncertainty, would, at the very least, call in the administrators or look to sell to a cash rich competitor or entrepreneur. Sadly, the board of TRFC have been trying for some time to do something along the lines of the latter…without success at a time when things didn’t look so bleak!
Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 6:34 pm
A good post, which I had written a reply to, then thought I really can’t post that. Going into detail on how the administration was operated is really going too far.
Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 4:42 pm #
That might very well mean TRFC’s future rides on the outcome of Friday’s hearing! It has been mooted, by JJ in particular, that the club have no chance of winning the case and so the wisdom of contesting the claim has been questioned. It may well be explained as a ‘last chance saloon’ scenario as the possibility of Green losing, and so the club don’t have to pay, has been removed from our musings. If getting McCoist off the payroll brought some relief, things could get very much worse on Friday.
===========================
I just can’t see Green winning on Friday. Not that I’m a legal expert or have any other knowledge of the case. I’ll say no more.
upthehoops 12th October 2015 at 6:55 pm
Likewise, no legal expert and no special knowledge of the case however I don’t see how he can lose. That is based on very little, in fact probably just the comments in the IPO.
Tris / Yes
upthehoops 12th October 2015 at 6:55 pm
Likewise, no legal expert and no special knowledge of the case however I don’t see how he can lose. That is based on very little, in fact probably just the comments in the IPO.
=================================
Seems clear cut I agree, but Green can lose by the Judge ruling in favour of Rangers, yes? Contracts are declared null and void by courts at times I believe.
Indeed, the Judge will make his decision based on the evidence put before him.
I’m not sure what argument the lawyers can put forward for the PLC though.
The only one I can think of is that it would effectively result in them not being able to pay their bills as they fall due and then be under the threat of being wound up by a creditor.
I don’t know if that is an acceptable reason though.
Thinking about it, they might even say “you can’t get blood from a stone and we just don’t have the money.”
In the event that the heritable assets revert back to BDO/the creditors, will TRFC be due to pay back-rent from the time they moved into Ibrox and MP? Perhaps not rent, as such, but compensation or something that is covered under laws relating to a situation where it is found that someone has been resident in a property they ultimately didn’t own/had no right to be in.
Homunculus 12th October 2015 at 8:00 pm #
The only one I can think of is that it would effectively result in them not being able to pay their bills as they fall due and then be under the threat of being wound up by a creditor
===================================
That is the crux of the matter for me, although I’m struggling to see why that should override a legally binding contract. However, if Rangers do succeed on that count, they may have to publicly reveal the true state of the finances.
Barcabhoy 12th October 2015 at 4:20 pm #
‘..Essentially the company has to cover all legals, regardless of outcome, ..’
_________
Bear with me while my tired brain gives my reading of what I think are the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2006.
Section 232(2) says in essence that any provision [ whether contained in the company’s Articles or in any contract with the company] under which a company provides an indemnity to a director in connection with any negligence, default etc etc in relation to the company is void, except as permitted by section 233
And Section 233 says that 232(2) does not prevent a company taking out and maintaining insurance for a director against any such liability as is mentioned in that subsection.{in relation to liability to the Company}
Section 234 says that 232(2) also does not apply to “qualifying third party indemnity provision”. [that’s indemnity against liability incurred by a director to a person other than the company.]
But a provision will only be a ” qualifying third party indemnity provision” if it does NOT indemnify against a liability for fines on criminal conviction, OR in defending criminal proceedings in which the director is ultimately convicted.
Now that’s as I read things.
So, even if RIFC had taken out and maintained insurance of that kind for its directors, it would appear that it will be void IF any director is looking to have his legal expenses for his criminal trial paid for, IF he is convicted ( after any appeals).
If there happened to be no insurance , then the hapless director cannot look to any Article of the Company or any contract with the company,because 232(2) specifically applies to any provision anywhere under which the company purports to let directors off the liability hook , other than in the permitted circumstances and qualifying conditions.
If there is insurance, and the director is convicted, the insurance is void.
If there is no insurance, the director cannot rely on anything in his ‘contract’ that would legally permit the company to indemnify him from its own resources.
Am I completely out a layman’s limb in this interpretation of the ridiculously convoluted legalese?
(a) civil or criminal proceedings in relation to the company or an associated company (other than a liability incurred in defending proceeding brought by the company or an associate company in which final judgement is given against the directors)
To me that reads Sevco have a get-out, if it is they themselves, who initiate proceedings and they are the wronged party.
Seems like a straight-forward defence whereby the learned gentlemen only have to turn up with a front page copy of the Daily Record.
Corrupt official 12th October 2015 at 10:47 pm
As I understand it these proceedings are criminal, on indictment and are not a civil matter.
If that is the case then the proceedings are at the behest of the Lord Advocate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Advocate
“He or she is the chief public prosecutor for Scotland and all prosecutions on indictment are conducted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, nominally in the Lord Advocate’s name.”
Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 4:17 pm #
‘..One thing’s for sure, Green’s legal team, before the case starts, will want to know they are going to get their money, whatever the verdict..’
_______
I imagine that in terms of legal costs, the case has already started, in so far as, presumably, all the accused will have had to engage solicitors and QCs for their defence in the ciminal cases.
CG will, in addition, already have incurred liability for the costs of his civil action in the matter of getting his legal fees paid! Presumably, snice the two sets of matters are being heard on the same day, the criminal indictments in the High Court and Green’s civil case across the road in Parliament House, he’s in for at least 2 QCs and their bagmen/women, since even the very best QCs and solicitors cannot bilocate!
I’ve no idea how QCs tot up their bills- number of hours spent with the briefing solicitor and client, number of hours of research, number of hours preparing their case, number of hours of Court time, multiplied by £x to the power of y!
I shouldn’t laugh.