The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !

By

Auldheid says: July 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm “Scottish football as …

Comment on The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies ! by CastofThousands.

Auldheid says:
July 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm

“Scottish football as they have a duty of care to the passengers as well as themselves.”
————————–
A vessel’s stability is not necessarily breached at the point its watertight integrity is compromised. The hole below the waterline is just the beginning of a process of destabilisation. As the ingress of water escalates the crew will take desperate measures to isolate the damaged section of hull by securing doors: They will set pumps in motion to displace the incoming fluid. Only time will tell if the breech is too significant to avoid ultimate catastrophe.

The damage may therefore already have been done. We know there is at least one crisis management process underway. When unprecedented events are encountered it is more by luck than judgement that its victims escape an ignominious fate. When you see a mighty vessel at sea it is easy to believe that it borders upon invincibility. However it is only great skill and a thorough knowledge of the rules of seamanship that ensure the safety of everyone onboard. With every risk that is taken the margin for error decreases. In a culture that has become unable to recognise its own risky behaviour there is every likelihood that invisible lines will be crossed.

Time will tell.

Time and tide wait for no man.

CastofThousands Also Commented

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
Smugas says:
July 15, 2013 at 10:34 am

“Just to say I don’t really feel I have the abilities or techie nous to contribute to the current investigations, but I am following avidly.”
————————
Keep up Smugas. 😉

Seriously, I have every sympathy but would encourage posters and lurkers to stay onboard. The slow assimilation of information may eventually provide for an emerging picture. I was sure I was well adrift of the business links discussion but when I read newtz mega post the other day I understood virtually every word. Even though I didn’t have all the facts, I had aquired enough knowledge for his solution to make sense.

As ecobhoy said yesterday, you never know what little snippet of recollection or information is going to bridge the gap between previously dispirit facts. If we hang in whilst the guys that like to specialise in this kind of stuff range far and wide, we will all have that fuller knowledge that will allow the ‘truth’ to get out into the wider world.

I recall when Sam first started posting I was more than sceptical about his motives (call me paranoid): Long scripts of business information without any context or a link to its source. I thought it was clogging up the blog. It now appears he has been dropping in essential ingredients of the recipe.


The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
newtz says:
July 14, 2013 at 3:12 pm

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=news&code=cotn:NOVA.L&action=article&articleid=8583918
—————————–
A couple of stupid questions if you’d endulge me.

1. Fook-Meng Chang – who is he?

I know there’s a link with Rivzi. Can this be explained in one sentence?

2. Daniel Stewart & Co. Ltd – Nominated advisors and brokers : David Hart/James Felix.

Is this ‘Hart’ the same one that’s just been appointed to the Ranger’s board.


The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !
greenockjack says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:14 am

“I take it that post is a wind-up, isn´t it ?”
———————————
I understand your scepticism Jack. Why would Sir David Fraser (of MIH), husband of Kae, be talking in code? 😆


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