Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar By

Melbournedee 13th November 2015 at 9:59 am # Who would have …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by wottpi.

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.

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?
So Ashley is now gunning for the SFA on another flank.

Just as a wee reminder there is no UEFA ruling to say that a person can’t have influence over two clubs or more. The ruling is that if it is shown there is the required level of influence then, if one or more qualify ,  only one team may be entered into a UEFA competition.

The SFA rules however, and rightly in my opinion, seem to be a bit tougher. With cross country ownership it seems ridiculous that someone somewhere could deny a club and its supporters the opportunity to enter a UEFA competition after qualifying via sporting endeavour.

The problem is however our old friend in the form of the clause “Except with the prior written consent of the Board”

Ashley is mostly likely combining his beef with his fine to the fact that the SFA has appeared to use the same option of Board Consent to allow the convicted tax dodger pass the Fit & Proper Test.

The argument surely being that Ashley has a record of operating a profitable EPL club and thus why not allow him to assist Rangers. Whereas our man from SA, in addition to his convictions, was a board member of the EBT riddled liquidated club whose new incarnation is running at a loss and up to its eyes in debt, including a £5m sum owed to Ashley, has been allowed to take his place within Scottish Football


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