Two wrongs and a right

Avatar By

Dropping out of lurking mode for a few mins to …

Comment on Two wrongs and a right by Bayview Gold.

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!

Recent Comments by Bayview Gold

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!


The Case for a New SFA.
thinking aloud re the debate over the legal expense question, I would imagine that there is a connection to the charge specifics of the criminal case as to how the coverage question is answered, typically this type of indemnification from a company or an insurer only holds for actions not against the company. for example if charges of defrauding the company are brought against you it is not normal for the company to be liable to pay your costs in that scenario. However if charges are brought against you in relation to a third party whilst an officer of the company then it would be expected that the coverage or agreement holds.
Without seeing the specifics of the actual contract then the guilty/not-guilty part is difficult to answer and we are all looking at tea leaves trying to see a pattern. I’m not sure that any of the publicly available or posted docs have the entirety.
Going back to the other aspect of this and a point I have raised before, there is a narrative that CG is being prosecuted for alleged actions against the “club”, my belief is that he is being prosecuted for alleged actions against third parties on BEHALF of the “club”, as representative officer of said “club”. This doesn’t fit the victim mentality but makes more logical sense to me given what we know, and also fits the thinking behind the “club” potentially being on the hook for his legal defence.


About the author

Avatar