Their Master’s Voice

By

Rabo Karabekian says: July 26, 2013 at 9:55 pm “What he …

Comment on Their Master’s Voice by CastofThousands.

Rabo Karabekian says:
July 26, 2013 at 9:55 pm

“What he did not know at that time? The JackLargs were watching.”
—————————-
An amusing and intiguing tale for which as you say, any resemblance to real events is purely co-incidental.

I wonder in this netherworld how long the JackLargs had been aware of Lancelot’s good/mis-fortune?

I do hope Lancelot escapes the evil grasp of the no-gooders. Perhaps as part of a happy ending, he is aided by a kind stranger. What assistance do you think might this stranger render to Lancelot’s advantage?

CastofThousands Also Commented

Their Master’s Voice
beatipacificiscotia says:
August 2, 2013 at 8:32 pm

“If not, there are details on Charlotte Fakes of an agreement to secure Murray Park against loans for money used to acquire Rangers’ assets from D&P.”
————————
I think this is part of the jigsaw and may jog memories :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141736878/imran-rafat-craig-aidan-chris

It does not deal with the contractual relationship between the different parties however.

Cutting to the chase, the Letter Before Claim if you want to indulge your curiosity. I seem to recollect that the legal advice went all the way down to the Basil II clauses.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141684147/RFC-Letter-Before-Claim


Their Master’s Voice
Steerpike says:
August 2, 2013 at 6:17 pm

“The charge is valid when the court declares it valid, his original claim was turfed out as drivel, ”
===============
I was intrigued by that remark and even more so when I read :
===============
Steerpike says:
August 2, 2013 at 7:33 pm

“difference between registering a floating charge and the charge being upheld, if it has not been challenged it is because it has not been submitted to any court, wonder why ?”
————————-
“turfed out as drivel” and “not been submitted to any court” might seem like anomolous statements to some. Perhaps you could explain the distinction?


Their Master’s Voice
Steerpike says:
August 2, 2013 at 5:46 pm

“There are some who believe a man can own assets others have paid for, I am not one of them.”
——————————-
Who paid for the assets?


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