Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar By

RyanGosling 12th November 2015 at 9:53 pm Nice to see you …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by wottpi.

RyanGosling 12th November 2015 at 9:53 pm

Nice to see you are still around 19

General trivia question to all.

Can anyone remember the last two officers of clubs who had a penchant for outrageous statements and what happened to them?
(Clues one was involved in court today and the other was last seen looking to return to taxi driving in eastern Europe). 

Along with King these two chancers show that most senior officers in other clubs today have a fair idea of how to run them for the good of the business and the fans and need no lectures from tax dodgers.

wottpi Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
motor red 13th November 2015 at 12:16 pm

I think that is a key point in relation to the way the saga is playing.

I understand why the Bears want to keep their titles. However are none of them appear to be raging that the argument now seems to be that a whole raft of talented players could have been brought to the club at much lower costs and still achieved the same degree of success.

Had that been possible then the banks loans etc may not have been needed and the cash saved could / should have been used to develop home grown talent instead of relying on imported talent from years to come.

The rest of Sottish Football seem to be acknowledging that the period of financial madness that followed on from the start of the SDM/Souness era has had long term consequences for the game in Scotland in terms of our inability to develop our own talent.

I can fully understand why, at the time, Celtic and Rangers plumped for spending on foreign talent but so many other clubs got themselves into bother by paying for imports, some of who weren’t that great, while stifling the opportunities for home grown talent to develop.  

Because they still believe they are Billy Big Baws with access to unlimited funds many a Bear seems to think that is should be ‘back to the future’.

As Ryan implies, those with a more realistic and practical view on how the club should progress are being shouted down for the bombastic tones of years gone by.

It is the lack of development of home grown talent and a reckless attitude towards  financial mismanagement that Scottish Football needs to resolve and move on from, not just the possibility of stripping titles.


Whose assets are they anyway?
melbournedee 13th November 2015 at 10:53 am

Agreed, in terms of the legal entities the timeline is pre Sevco Scotland when it was unregulated horse trading and possibly Sevco 5088 dealing with D&P (but leave that aside for another day) and then the timeline post creation of Sevco Scotland.
Once Sevco Scotland was formed then that is it in terms of a company taking on its legal identity, the club talk/ two weeks time difference from asset transfer was just nonsense.

Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.


Whose assets are they anyway?
melbournedee 13th November 2015 at 9:59 am #
Who would have thought that Mr Wolffe’s main argument for rejecting Mr Green’s claim would centre around the timeline of when the everlasting “Rangers Football Club” transferred from Oldco to Newco!

==============================================

Given the contract Green appears to hold, the ‘timeline’ is the only argument that can be put forward to defend against Green’s claim. In that, why should the Ltd or Plc be liable for costs defending alleged actions and plans that may have been put in place before the creation of said Ltd and Plc.

As you will be aware there were lots of whispering at the bench re the charges for the upcoming trial. Lord Doherty will no doubt be considering the specifics of the charges and their  ‘timeline’ in relation to when the alleged plot was hatched to purchase the assets, launch and IPO etc etc and how these tie in and balance with Green’s contract and the need for the resulting companies, at this present time,  to protect themselves from any potential fall out from the upcoming trial.

As has discussed and seemed apparent yesterday , the dilemma is the possibility of not assisting Green could result in him being represented by less capable lawyers and thus lose the case which in turn could put the assets of the club in jeopardy and therefore cause major problems for the Ltd and Plc.

Remember Mini Murray and King have a bee in their bonnets about all previous boards of Sevco but nailing them might not actually be in the best interests of the business as it currently stands.


Recent Comments by wottpi

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 28, 2017 at 13:48

Indeed. And that was my other thought.
Even if Mark Allen does a good job T”Rangers wouldn’t see any cash for any upcoming talent (internal or bought in)  for a god number of years.
To date a good few lads showing talent have been allowed to leave to keep the lights on.
At present the only prospect they have is McRorie who I think has stepped up and performed well when asked.He certainly has confidence and could develop into a decent centre back playing with the likes of Souttar for Scotland.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
I am sure the thought will have crossed other’s minds but will say it anyway.
Celtics ‘free money’ from the VVD  transfer is more than T’Rangers stated  loan requirements to keep the lights on for the next year or two.
Thats the size of the gap between Celtic and the rest of us.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 22, 2017 at 12:56

Lets just call it 14 February for old times sake and serendipity. 21


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Statement O’clock but on another matter.

ClydeSSB tweeting Murty appointed until end of the season.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
EASYJAMBODECEMBER 22, 2017 at 10:33

Thought that may be the case but was wondering if someone would be trying to get ahead of the game.


About the author

Avatar