The Immortality Project

By

Plughole says: September 29, 2013 at 3:42 pm ” If not, …

Comment on The Immortality Project by CastofThousands.

Plughole says:
September 29, 2013 at 3:42 pm

” If not, complicit in fraud. Surely the Police should investigate”
—————————–
As you said in your previous post Plughole, none of this will come to court.

The Sevco 5088/Sevco Scotland switch is shrouded in mystery. Charlotte’s leaks led us to the door of IA’s Simply Stockbrocking where the Sevco 5088 funds from investors were received for the Rangers bid. The trail goes cold at that point.

Ticketus may well hold a continuing interest via CW but this will remain obscure I suspect.

The return of Rangers to the top flight shorn of the accumulated debt three years after entering administration may be seen as a scandal. However they will be a weakened outfit and their relentless progress is not guaranteed on a number of levels.

As master plans go, this might turn out not to be amongst the best.

CastofThousands Also Commented

The Immortality Project
john clarke says:
October 3, 2013 at 12:40 pm

“But -and if you have a copy of the actual Sale and Purchase Agreement ( I haven’t) could you check that it was SEVCO 5088 that was the actual contracting party?”
—————————————-
It was. The accompanying letter is similarly from Sevco 5088.


The Immortality Project
ecobhoy says:
October 3, 2013 at 10:38 am

” I’m possibly missing something as I often do.”
——————————-
I think the West Ham piece was quite succinct apart from the one obvious error pointed out by BartinMain. It did cover known ‘facts’ but I appreciated the post’s plausibility. I don’t think it does any harm to have fresh perspectives to cultivate our own considerations.


The Immortality Project
ecobhoy says:
October 3, 2013 at 8:50 am

“The TRFCL minute continually refers to ‘directors’ of Sevco 5088 in the plural which sits uneasily with the claims that Green was the only director”
—————————-
A wee bit convoluted but full of good stuff and painting an increasingly recognisable picture of our current understanding of Sevco 5088/Scotland.

The piece doesn’t deserve my pedantry but the line above may not be as critical as you suspect. Might ‘Directors’ plural be a general use to recognise that the number of directors may fluctuate over time so employing the plural ‘Directors’ is a sensible default.


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

Scottish football needs a strong something or other.


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

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


About the author