The Immortality Project

Avatar By

Castofthousands says: October 3, 2013 at 8:58 pm ecobhoy says: October 3, 2013 …

Comment on The Immortality Project by ecobhoy.

Castofthousands says:
October 3, 2013 at 8:58 pm
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’ was a sensible default.
I have no problem in putting my hands up to convoluted – it’s the way my mind works but it makes sense to me 😆

I would take your point if it was a forward-looking document where often there will be a list of definitions used which state that where the singular is used it also covers the plural in recognition that numbers might change.

But this isn’t that kind of document but a minute of previous actions or decisions taken – Officially there was only one director of Sevco 5088. So I think it was an intentional smokescreen to use ‘directors’ rather than ‘director’ because even Malcolm Murray might have woken-up if Green – the guy presumably reporting to the TRFCL board about the affairs of Sevco 5088 – had been minuted as the sole director who had received these oral agreements from all the original shareholders. Remember unlike the novation there appears to have been no written acceptance provided by the shareholders.

An alternative that everyone by the time of the 31 October 3012 TRFCL Board meeting knew that Whyte and Earley had been directors of Sevco 5088 as well as Green. It’s possible but I just don’t see Murray knowing and, at that point, I don’t think Stockbridge knew but that’s a guess based on the belief that Stockbridge wouldn’t have been daft enough to get involved in an AIM notice stating that the Whyte and Earley Sevco 5088 directorship notifications were basically fraudulent.

Think of the date of the minute which was 31 October 2012 and the members present: Green, Ahmad. Murray, Stockbridge (by video link – how apt), and Sevim Cesim who assisted Stockbridge with taking minutes down.

She’s a Geneva-based real looker and would certainly turn heads IMO: And she’s got brains as well as beauty and seems a bit high-powered to be used just for minutes: Her Linkedin profile for her time at Rangers reads:

Corporate Executive The Rangers Football Club plc
October 2012 – January 2013 (4 months) Glasgow, United Kingdom
Pre-IPO/IPO process AIM – LSE and Company Secretarial Work


Throughout this saga there has been very careful use of language as part of the smoke and mirrors approach and I see no exception here. Hope that wasn’t too convoluted 😆

ecobhoy Also Commented

The Immortality Project
I’m fascinated by the business background of Craig Mather which sits a bit oddly IMO with not wanting to get involved in the day to day business affairs of Rangers but just to concentrate on developing the youth at Murray Park.

Mather stated: ‘My forte and future role with Rangers will be based on youth development side. So, spending more time at Murray Park rather than the Ibrox side of the business. From discussions we’ve had to date, there is an intent for me to have a seat on the footballing board, looking at that side of things. I’ll be working with the staff there.’

Did you see the comment that he wasn’t known to Green or Ahmad or the writer nefore he invested.

Well that’s not what Craig said when he was announced on July 18th last year as being a shareholder in the Green consortium

‘I met Charles Green a while ago and we have a few common contacts. He put the idea to me, and I’ve always been a lover of football. That was how it started. I had various meeting with Charles and the team and had a look at the facilities at Murray Park – and it went from there,.” explained Mather

The Immortality Project
Danish Pastry says:
October 3, 2013 at 11:39 pm

I think I jumped the gun and it’s late. I was looking for something new. I just realised the last is from CG, too. Indeed, you’re right. I think influenza is getting the better of me. Spent far too much time reading this blog and posting trivia from the sofa today! No one in the press will run with this though, and probably not ask a question either 😯 I wonder if old MM is somehow involved in this?
I think MM or IA must be Number 1 candidates but often it’s someone you never suspect so who knows?

The material is dynamite and I have no doubt that complaints have already been made to AIM to stir the pot there and no doubt BDO as well.

The Immortality Project
ekt1m says:
October 3, 2013 at 11:32 pm

Having been on TSFM and RTC almost since the beginning, I have finally come around to the belief that any poster who persistently posts and then deletes said posts should be asked to quit the site forthwith. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
I don’t disagree – when you see it being done persistently it’s usually they type of poster who will bounce back at a later date and claim that what they had written was true and no one listened to them when the fact is they had written tosh.

We all make mistakes and part of judging the worth of a poster is seeing how they deal with those mistakes and move on from them in a way that shows they have learnt a bit. As I always say about myself: ‘I never make the same mistake twice as there are always a host of new ones waiting out there’.

Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
Couldn’t agree more!

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.

About the author