The Existence of Laws


Borussiabeefburg says: Monday, May 20, 2013 at 15:26 “I’ve wiped the film …

Comment on The Existence of Laws by CastofThousands.

borussiabeefburg says:
Monday, May 20, 2013 at 15:26

“I’ve wiped the film as it seems disparaging , and put the audio to roughly the correct speed. Recognise anyone?”
I could’nt open that file. Please check your link via the blog and repost if necessary.

briggsbhoy says:
Monday, May 20, 2013 at 15:23

“Ladyboys of Bangkok ! I’m confused,not sure what your inferring to there”.

Charlotte’s gender briggsboy; its been openly questioned by previous posters. I’m not happy at the prospect of romancing this beautiful, wealthy intelligent being only to discover at a critical juncture that all is not what it seems. How deep might this fakery extend.
I’ve never seen the programme myself, but its title does conjure up an incident a friend recollected to me concerning one of his visits to the city concerned. For reasons of good taste I am unable to elaborate but if I have to explain my humour any further then it will only serve to reveal my lack of wit.

Ifs there’s any doubt briggsboy, I’m willing to step aside and allow you mastery of the field.

CastofThousands Also Commented

The Existence of Laws
Charlotte’s recent ‘smears and fears’ tweet should be read in conjunction with the following I suspect.

The Existence of Laws
Castofthousands says:
June 12, 2013 at 5:35 pm

Site background has gone all pink, was blue before. Either trying to soothe (@StevieBC) or the temp is heating up at TSFM 🙂

The Existence of Laws
verselijkfc says:
June 12, 2013 at 1:20 pm

“Fettes-gate – Magic Circle and our old friend Nimmo-Smith”
bayviewgold says:
June 12, 2013 at 4:22 pm

“is it just me or is the TSFM site looking at the world through rose tinted browser today?”

Both these comments are intriguing but not self explanatory. Care to elaborate guys.

Recent Comments by CastofThousands

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

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

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

Thanks HP, that answered my question,

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish football needs a strong something or other.

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

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

About the author