The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Footballfirst]

More charges on the way?

 

The STV story has been updated with the following:

 

Former Rangers co-administrator David Whitehouse, 50, has also been detained by police. He worked with Duff & Phelps when Rangers went into administration.

 

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1327848-ex-rangers-chief-executive-charles-green-detained-in-police-custody/

[Jambo 4 Ever]

More charges on the way?

 

The STV story has been updated with the following:

 

Former Rangers co-administrator David Whitehouse, 50, has also been detained by police. He worked with Duff & Phelps when Rangers went into administration.

 

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1327848-ex-rangers-chief-executive-charles-green-detained-in-police-custody/

Could this have any impact on Sevco at all?

[Unknown user]

Surely oldco creditors/BDO would only be interested in getting stuff like Ibrox and Murray Park.

I'm sure they're only actually interested in cold hard cash but that's not really the point, even those assets have changed since then, there are securities in place that weren't there before for example.

 

From the point of view of the law of the land, in general companies are good things and are to be protected - the law is not set up to destroy companies which have been manipulated by unscrupulous individual.

 

Rangers are a trading company with shareholders and employees, the law sees that as a thing to protect

[SectionDJambo]

So the heroes of Keef and his weegie media mates, who fawned over these saviours of ra peepel, are now being detained by the polis.

How easily were these numpties hoodwinked by the spivs?

[lost in space]

Lots of people are not magicians though ...

Very good.

[Wilson]

Could this have any impact on Sevco at all?

Yes.

 

Have to be careful what is said I suppose (sub-judice etc), but if, big if, the assets have been sold by Duff and Phelps fraudulently as claimed for a long time by C Whyte, then there is a problem. If the title to the property assets was a fraudulent transfer then they might revert to BDO as liquidator of Oldco, which could be a protracted legal fight.

 

Won't affect Rangers existence at all, but they might have to move, or buy/rent Ibrox.

 

I am not a lawyer.

[Jambof3tornado]

Yes.

 

Have to be careful what is said I suppose (sub-judice etc), but if, big if, the assets have been sold by Duff and Phelps fraudulently as claimed for a long time by C Whyte, then there is a problem. If the title to the property assets was a fraudulent transfer then they might revert to BDO as liquidator of Oldco, which could be a protracted legal fight.

 

Won't affect Rangers existence at all, but they might have to move, or buy/rent Ibrox.

 

I am not a lawyer.

I assume any assets transferred/sold before when sevco were a wee diddy team will be worth considerably more as a soon to be back in the top flight team??

 

Plenty legs in this old thread yet!

[Footballfirst]

PMGB also suggesting that Craig Whyte will be interviewed again this week.

 

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/craig-whyte-to-be-interviewed-by-police-scotland-this-week/

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I'm sure they're only actually interested in cold hard cash but that's not really the point, even those assets have changed since then, there are securities in place that weren't there before for example.

 

From the point of view of the law of the land, in general companies are good things and are to be protected - the law is not set up to destroy companies which have been manipulated by unscrupulous individual.

 

Rangers are a trading company with shareholders and employees, the law sees that as a thing to protect

The law also sees the rights of the creditors of RFC as a thing to protect. If the court finds the transfer of ownership of RFC's assets was fraudulent then it's pretty certain that it would be treated similarly to stolen property, such as a car, and returned to it's rightful owners. TRFC/RIFC might well be offered the chance to pay the difference between a fair price and what was actually paid (and get a better deal than, say, a developer), but if they can't, or there's a long protracted legal argument, then they could be in dire difficulty (even more than they are already). TRFC/RIFC will not be wound up as a direct result of any fraudulent activity, but their assets might well be removed from them. Many a business has ceased, costing many workers their jobs, in the past due to the fraudulent activity of spiv owners!

 

Or looked at in a different way: are you suggesting that if the assets were owned by, say, Charles Green, and there was no one else to be hurt, that the law would return the assets to their rightful owners, but not if the assets were now owned by some good and innocent people? If it goes that far, the law will decide who is the rightful owner, and pass ownership to them, regardless of how it might affect other, innocent, people!

[jambovambo]

Oooh - I wonder which one will turn "Queen's evidence" ? 

 

(I'd go for Whytey-boy and his tape recorder ...)

[Unknown user]

The law also sees the rights of the creditors of RFC as a thing to protect. If the court finds the transfer of ownership of RFC's assets was fraudulent then it's pretty certain that it would be treated similarly to stolen property, such as a car, and returned to it's rightful owners. TRFC/RIFC might well be offered the chance to pay the difference between a fair price and what was actually paid (and get a better deal than, say, a developer), but if they can't, or there's a long protracted legal argument, then they could be in dire difficulty (even more than they are already). TRFC/RIFC will not be wound up as a direct result of any fraudulent activity, but their assets might well be removed from them. Many a business has ceased, costing many workers their jobs, in the past due to the fraudulent activity of spiv owners!

 

Or looked at in a different way: are you suggesting that if the assets were owned by, say, Charles Green, and there was no one else to be hurt, that the law would return the assets to their rightful owners, but not if the assets were now owned by some good and innocent people? If it goes that far, the law will decide who is the rightful owner, and pass ownership to them, regardless of how it might affect other, innocent, people!

Perhaps the best way to answer is to ask you to provide details of a similar case where, years after the event, a company which was sold fraudulently was then returned to the original owners, despite now being owned by parties not involved in the fraudulent transaction.

 

Rangers will not change hands back to the previous owners as a result of this imo

[Victor Meldrew]

Perhaps the best way to answer is to ask you to provide details of a similar case where, years after the event, a company which was sold fraudulently was then returned to the original owners, despite now being owned by parties not involved in the fraudulent transaction.

 

Rangers will not change hands back to the previous owners as a result of this imo

 

It depends what you mean by 'Rangers' in this context. You're right that the new company (i.e Sevco) won't change hands, but if you mean the assets that were sold to it by the liquidators of the old company, I would have thought that those could, in principle, be ordered to be returned.

 

If (and I'm not saying this was the case - I don't know enough about the case) there was a fraudulent deal between a liquidator and a purchaser of assets, I'd have thought that the purchaser wouldn't acquire good title to those assets and the company (in the form of a replacement office holder) could assert a proprietary claim to the assets that had been sold. 

[Unknown user]

It depends what you mean by 'Rangers' in this context. You're right that the new company (i.e Sevco) won't change hands, but if you mean the assets that were sold to it by the liquidators of the old company, I would have thought that those could, in principle, be ordered to be returned.

 

If (and I'm not saying this was the case - I don't know enough about the case) there was a fraudulent deal between a liquidator and a purchaser of assets, I'd have thought that the purchaser wouldn't acquire good title to those assets and the company (in the form of a replacement office holder) could assert a proprietary claim to the assets that had been sold.

Years have gone by though, and in this time the assets have changed.

 

The simplest example I can think of is that Sports Direct now have a legally granted security on bricks and mortar- that can't just be taken off them because someone broke the law a few years ago.

 

If there has been wrongdoing, it'll come down to a financial settlement between the fraudster and those that were defrauded- the assets will not be returned. IMO

[hmfc_steve]

Perhaps the best way to answer is to ask you to provide details of a similar case where, years after the event, a company which was sold fraudulently was then returned to the original owners, despite now being owned by parties not involved in the fraudulent transaction.

 

Rangers will not change hands back to the previous owners as a result of this imo

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/press-room/press-release-archive/press-releases-2004/confiscation-concludes-proceedings-in-asset-stripping-fraud.aspx

[Don Dan]

Years have gone by though, and in this time the assets have changed.

The simplest example I can think of is that Sports Direct now have a legally granted security on bricks and mortar- that can't just be taken off them because someone broke the law a few years ago.

If there has been wrongdoing, it'll come down to a financial settlement between the fraudster and those that were defrauded- the assets will not be returned. IMO

Smithee, what's your thoughts on this scenarios and could it be applied to this case (if there was wrong doing).

You buy a car from someone who has all the correct paper work as far as your concerned. You are stopped by the police who in amongst their checks discover the VIN number has been altered. They now will take the car from you and return it to the rightful owners and you are left with nothing. It's up to you to try and get any money back from the vendor but good luck with one.

 

 

Proving that property is "criminal property"

 

To prove that property is "criminal property" (i.e. the proceeds of crime) the prosecutor must show the property:

 

Constitutes benefit from criminal conduct or that it represents such a benefit (in whole or part and whether directly or indirectly) and;

The alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit [section 340(3)].

The property which may comprise the benefit from criminal conduct is widely defined (see S.340 [9] and [10]) to include:

 

Money;

All forms of property or real estate;

Things in action and other intangible or incorporeal property.

Property is obtained by a person if he obtains an interest in it.

 

Because of the definition of criminal property, there is no distinction between the proceeds of the defendant's own crimes and of crimes committed by others (see S.340 [4]). Thus laundering one's own proceeds is just as much money laundering, as similar activities performed by someone else, notably professional launderers on behalf of the authors of the predicate or underlying offences.

 

Own proceeds laundering applies to all 3 principal money laundering offences.

 

Proving that proceeds are the benefit from criminal conduct in money laundering prosecutions (proving the predicate offence).

 

Proving that proceeds are the benefit of "criminal conduct" will usually be done by circumstantial evidence.

 

The above is only a snippet of what's available to the prosecutors and courts to take back what was criminally gained and any profits netted in the process.

How this would apply to Sevco if they, Green and co are found to have committed a crime I'm not sure but I am positive that like other crimes like drugs, money laundering theft ect they will go after the assets and other things deemed gained through criminal activity.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Dannie Boy

[Jack Torrance]

Sorry if it's already been posted; article in The Guardian fairly sticking the boot into the Daily Record...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/19/daily-record-rangers

 

 

I hadn't noticed it at the time but enjoyed the kicking they gave them.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited September 1, 2015 by Jack Torrance

[Unknown user]

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/press-room/press-release-archive/press-releases-2004/confiscation-concludes-proceedings-in-asset-stripping-fraud.aspx

The first line of this is "Court proceedings in an asset stripping fraud concluded today with a confiscation order of ?60,000"

 

Not a similar case as far as I can see, and anyway, the assets/company were not returned.

[Unknown user]

Smithee, what's your thoughts on this scenarios and could it be applied to this case (if there was wrong doing).

You buy a car from someone who has all the correct paper work as far as your concerned. You are stopped by the police who in amongst their checks discover the VIN number has been altered. They now will take the car from you and return it to the rightful owners and you are left with nothing. It's up to you to try and get any money back from the vendor but good luck with one.

 

 

Proving that property is "criminal property"

 

To prove that property is "criminal property" (i.e. the proceeds of crime) the prosecutor must show the property:

 

Constitutes benefit from criminal conduct or that it represents such a benefit (in whole or part and whether directly or indirectly) and;

The alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit [section 340(3)].

The property which may comprise the benefit from criminal conduct is widely defined (see S.340 [9] and [10]) to include:

 

Money;

All forms of property or real estate;

Things in action and other intangible or incorporeal property.

Property is obtained by a person if he obtains an interest in it.

 

Because of the definition of criminal property, there is no distinction between the proceeds of the defendant's own crimes and of crimes committed by others (see S.340 [4]). Thus laundering one's own proceeds is just as much money laundering, as similar activities performed by someone else, notably professional launderers on behalf of the authors of the predicate or underlying offences.

 

Own proceeds laundering applies to all 3 principal money laundering offences.

 

Proving that proceeds are the benefit from criminal conduct in money laundering prosecutions (proving the predicate offence).

 

Proving that proceeds are the benefit of "criminal conduct" will usually be done by circumstantial evidence.

 

The above is only a snippet of what's available to the prosecutors and courts to take back what was criminally gained and any profits netted in the process.

How this would apply to Sevco if they, Green and co are found to have committed a crime I'm not sure but I am positive that like other crimes like drugs, money laundering theft ect they will go after the assets and other things deemed gained throw criminal activity.

Now throw this into the mix.

 

The car is now owned by a motley crew of hundreds of individual shareholders and corporate investors, many of whom have bought their share legitimately since the original transaction took place.

 

The engine has been upgraded, a new towbar added, the roof taken off, hotrod wheels added.

 

Which assets are to be returned? The original wheels or the new ones, bought and paid for by new shareholders? The roof has been scrapped, the roof rack given away, the valves in the engine have been changed. How do they return the roof? The valves? Are innocent, legitimate shareholders to have assets taken off them?

 

How do they untangle the plate of spaghetti in front of them to right whatever the wrong is?

 

It has to come down to money, there's no other way to sort it.

Again, imo

[SUTOL]

Perhaps the best way to answer is to ask you to provide details of a similar case where, years after the event, a company which was sold fraudulently was then returned to the original owners, despite now being owned by parties not involved in the fraudulent transaction.

 

Rangers will not change hands back to the previous owners as a result of this imo

Do you have any examples to back up your opinion?

 

 

 

 

That's not a dig or anything, just a genuine question, if there is anything similar to look at as an example.

[jambovambo]

Sorry if it's already been posted; article in The Guardian fairly sticking the boot into the Daily Record...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/19/daily-record-rangers

 

 

I hadn't noticed it at the time but enjoyed the kicking they gave them.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still relevant two years on ...

[Unknown user]

Do you have any examples to back up your opinion?

 

 

 

 

That's not a dig or anything, just a genuine question, if there is anything similar to look at as an example.

I don't mate, no, only offering an opinion.

 

It is however based on years of working in the financial world, in particular with secured charges on assets- they can't just be cancelled and the assets returned if granted legitimately, which they were.

 

It looks to me like there's a wishful thinking element going on here if I was being honest

[itsnomarooned]

Still relevant two years on ...

Jeez - just read it but I genuinely didn't appreciate it was from 2013.  What a shambles!

[Don Dan]

Now throw this into the mix.

 

The car is now owned by a motley crew of hundreds of individual shareholders and corporate investors, many of whom have bought their share legitimately since the original transaction took place.

 

The engine has been upgraded, a new towbar added, the roof taken off, hotrod wheels added.

 

Which assets are to be returned? The original wheels or the new ones, bought and paid for by new shareholders? The roof has been scrapped, the roof rack given away, the valves in the engine have been changed. How do they return the roof? The valves? Are innocent, legitimate shareholders to have assets taken off them?

 

How do they untangle the plate of spaghetti in front of them to right whatever the wrong is?

 

It has to come down to money, there's no other way to sort it.

Again, imo

So were the original buyers who are also innocent but they along with others who may think they have a share the asset they too will also loose out. As for any additions to the stolen property, if it's making the property work or stand up then that's tough as far as the laws concerned. The courts are quite brutal when seizing proceeds of crime the only assets that will escape are those that are removable and its proved beyond doubt they did not come via or were gained by crime or criminal action.

Like yours this is my opinion but based on what I've seen in action.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited September 1, 2015 by Dannie Boy

[Turkishcap]

Its impossible to consider closing this thread down, just as you think there is nothing up pops a brammer of a story. 

[Unknown user]

So were the original buyers who are also innocent but they along with others who may think they have a share the asset they too will also loose out. As for any additions to the stolen property, if it's making the property work or stand up then that's tough as far as the laws concerned. The courts are quite brutal when seizing proceeds of crime the only assets that will escape are those that are removable and its proved beyond doubt they did not come via or were gained the crime.

Like yours this is my opinion but based on what I've seen in action.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand what you're saying but you're ignoring the fact that Rangers is a multi million pound business owned by corporations as well as individuals, and when there's wrongdoing regarding companies on this scale (compared to a stolen car anyway), corporate law as a general rule turns to restitution.

 

But hey, we'll see won't we?

[Don Dan]

I understand what you're saying but you're ignoring the fact that Rangers is a multi million pound business owned by corporations as well as individuals, and when there's wrongdoing regarding companies on this scale (compared to a stolen car anyway), corporate law as a general rule turns to restitution.

 

But hey, we'll see won't we?

It will be educational and entertaining to watch how it unfolds. I'd also imagine it will take years as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[269miles]

So were the original buyers who are also innocent but they along with others who may think they have a share the asset they too will also loose out. As for any additions to the stolen property, if it's making the property work or stand up then that's tough as far as the laws concerned. The courts are quite brutal when seizing proceeds of crime the only assets that will escape are those that are removable and its proved beyond doubt they did not come via or were gained by crime or criminal action.

Like yours this is my opinion but based on what I've seen in action.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread has been running a long time , but IIRC correctly, the original IPO went ahead on the basis that Sevco "thought" they owned the stadium (or wooly words to that effect). This was quite clearly stated in the relevant documents leading up to the share issue.

 

Someone with a better memory than me may be able to confirm. But it was clear to people at the time (outsiders monitoring the position , I mean) that it wasn't a very strong claim to the assets (ie stadium).

 

Edit - and for good measure , DUFF & Duffer entered into an agreement  to sell the assets to Sevco (the Scottish one) but  actually sold it to Sevco (the English one). And I'm not sure that was ever satisfactorily explained.

Edited September 1, 2015 by 269miles

[Don Dan]

This thread has been running a long time , but IIRC correctly, the original IPO went ahead on the basis that Sevco "thought" they owned the stadium (or wooly words to that effect). This was quite clearly stated in the relevant documents leading up to the share issue.

 

Someone with a better memory than me may be able to confirm. But it was clear to people at the time (outsiders monitoring the position , I mean) that it wasn't a very strong claim to the assets (ie stadium).

Investor beware!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[King of the North]

Pleasing to see whiteside detained. While the current companies rifc and trfc won't be affected, their ownership of assets deemed to be illegally obtained might be.

 

If the initial sale of ibrox and Murray park out of liquidation for all of 5.5M is deemed to be illegal (and let's face it, it stank to high heaven) then is it too much to ask that those assets are simply returned to BDO to be sold at the highest price possible in the interests of the creditors of the oldco?

[Unknown user]

It will be educational and entertaining to watch how it unfolds. I'd also imagine it will take years as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Can't argue with that!

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Perhaps the best way to answer is to ask you to provide details of a similar case where, years after the event, a company which was sold fraudulently was then returned to the original owners, despite now being owned by parties not involved in the fraudulent transaction.

Rangers will not change hands back to the previous owners as a result of this imo

Could ask you to do similar to support your case! But that would just be stupid. I do know, though, it has been well covered in consumer programs, that a car, for instance, sold on fraudulently, is returned to it's rightful owner (usually the owner's insurance company) once discovered regardless of how innocent the current holder of the car is. Indeed, the same company that bought Rangers' assets still 'owns' them, regardless of who the shareholder might be now. A limited company has a legal personality, Sevco was the personality that may have gained the assets by fraudulent means. TRFC is Sevco, therfore, the company, or personality, that committed the fraud, still 'owns' the assets.

 

We may never know the answer to this aspect (unless you feel like spending a few hours searching for the relevent case law) as it may be that the court finds that no fraud took place, and so no threat to TRFC's ownership of the assets will emerge. But if it is found that fraud did take place, and the assets aren't returned to the liquidators, it won't be because of any time lapse or sympathy for shareholders or employees as you suggest, but because the law doesn't have the power to restore property to it's defrauded rightful owner, and that just wouldn't make sense.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Pleasing to see whiteside detained. While the current companies rifc and trfc won't be affected, their ownership of assets deemed to be illegally obtained might be.

If the initial sale of ibrox and Murray park out of liquidation for all of 5.5M is deemed to be illegal (and let's face it, it stank to high heaven) then is it too much to ask that those assets are simply returned to BDO to be sold at the highest price possible in the interests of the creditors of the oldco?

If the court finds that fraud has taken place, and that RFC (In Liquidation) still owns the assets, I suspect that TRFC would be offered the opportunity to pay the balance for all, or some, of the assets set at a 'fair price'. It may well be that they could retain Ibrox for the sum already paid with the other assets reverting back to the liquidators. On the other hand, the assets might all be returned to the liquidators with the purchase price returned to TRFC (perhaps less BDO's costs) then the club might have to bid along with any other would be purchasers.

 

It is, I think, still unclear whether any of the charges to be made will affect the ownership of the assets, but if they do, then any hopes to raise money via a share offer will be knocked on the head until a verdict is reached.

[ritchies75]

BBC understands Charles Green has been charged by Police Scotland & will appear at Glasgow Sheriff Court tomorrow

[Midloth_Iain]

Chuck has been formally arrested  

[kingdannyb]

OldCo creditors and owners of Ibrox soon to evict the Sevco FC squatters ?

[Victor Meldrew]

Years have gone by though, and in this time the assets have changed.

 

The simplest example I can think of is that Sports Direct now have a legally granted security on bricks and mortar- that can't just be taken off them because someone broke the law a few years ago.

 

If there has been wrongdoing, it'll come down to a financial settlement between the fraudster and those that were defrauded- the assets will not be returned. IMO

I didn't say that the assets would be returned free of any subsequent encumbrance. The underlying ownership can change subject to that. It happens all the time in insolvency proceedings where third parties have acquired rights.

[SUTOL]

I didn't notice anything about this on Reporting Scotland.

[Unknown user]

Could ask you to do similar to support your case! But that would just be stupid. I do know, though, it has been well covered in consumer programs, that a car, for instance, sold on fraudulently, is returned to it's rightful owner (usually the owner's insurance company) once discovered regardless of how innocent the current holder of the car is. Indeed, the same company that bought Rangers' assets still 'owns' them, regardless of who the shareholder might be now. A limited company has a legal personality, Sevco was the personality that may have gained the assets by fraudulent means. TRFC is Sevco, therfore, the company, or personality, that committed the fraud, still 'owns' the assets.

 

We may never know the answer to this aspect (unless you feel like spending a few hours searching for the relevent case law) as it may be that the court finds that no fraud took place, and so no threat to TRFC's ownership of the assets will emerge. But if it is found that fraud did take place, and the assets aren't returned to the liquidators, it won't be because of any time lapse or sympathy for shareholders or employees as you suggest, but because the law doesn't have the power to restore property to it's defrauded rightful owner, and that just wouldn't make sense.

Funnily, the guy I suggested provide an example actually came back with an example of fraud which ended up with financial restitution.

 

 

The thingis though, when rangers' assets were sold there was one buyer. That was a simple transaction.

 

There have since been share issues, sales and purchases.

 

There are now literally thousands of owners of Rangers, and therefore the assets, each of whom would be entitled to fight the removal of their assets through the courts.

 

If there was an attempt to return these assets, the one thing you could guarantee would be thousands of shareholders suing- the fall out would last years.

 

Far easier, more practical and financially sensible (think of the legal fees!) to look to a settlement figure IF it came to it, and that's normally where corporate cases end.

 

As I said before, I'm only offering an opinion, but I do have experience in finance and secured charges

[Footballfirst]

There are thousands of shareholders in RIFC but no longer in TRFC as their shares were swapped for those in the holding company.

[Unknown user]

There are thousands of shareholders in RIFC but no longer in TRFC as their shares were swapped for those in the holding company.

Wouldn't that just be a technicality in legal terms, as it's a wholly owned subsidiary?

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Funnily, the guy I suggested provide an example actually came back with an example of fraud which ended up with financial restitution.

The thingis though, when rangers' assets were sold there was one buyer. That was a simple transaction.

There have since been share issues, sales and purchases.

There are now literally thousands of owners of Rangers, and therefore the assets, each of whom would be entitled to fight the removal of their assets through the courts.

If there was an attempt to return these assets, the one thing you could guarantee would be thousands of shareholders suing- the fall out would last years.

Far easier, more practical and financially sensible (think of the legal fees!) to look to a settlement figure IF it came to it, and that's normally where corporate cases end.

As I said before, I'm only offering an opinion, but I do have experience in finance and secured charges

I also only have an opinion and little knowledge, but I do know the law treats a company as an individual and cares not for the shareholders, unless it is they who are in dispute with the company (or it's directors). As Footballfirst correctly points out, the shareholders, in this case, are even further removed from TRFC and the assets, so are even less of a consideration.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I didn't notice anything about this on Reporting Scotland.

What side of the country are you on? The left side have their fingers in their ears doing ye olde "la la la la la I'm not listening"

[Don Dan]

What side of the country are you on? The left side have their fingers in their ears doing ye olde "la la la la la I'm not listening"

Not anymore the one o clock has gone off in their ears and the look of shock is missing

[Unknown user]

I also only have an opinion and little knowledge, but I do know the law treats a company as an individual and cares not for the shareholders, unless it is they who are in dispute with the company (or it's directors). As Footballfirst correctly points out, the shareholders, in this case, are even further removed from TRFC and the assets, so are even less of a consideration.

That wouldn't stop those shareholders from fighting it every step of the way, causing huge delays and legal expenses.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that IF there's fraud found, by far the simplest, cheapest and most practical way to resolve things in thecorporate world is with a financial settlement.

 

I'm not much of a gambler but I'm confident that the company and/or assets won't be returned to previous owners. Bit it'll be interesting to see how it pans out

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

That wouldn't stop those shareholders from fighting it every step of the way, causing huge delays and legal expenses.

The point I'm trying to make is that IF there's fraud found, by far the simplest, cheapest and most practical way to resolve things in thecorporate world is with a financial settlement.

I'm not much of a gambler but I'm confident that the company and/or assets won't be returned to previous owners. Bit it'll be interesting to see how it pans out

I think any delays and legal expenses would be just as damaging to TRFC as losing their assets. They desperately need a successful share issue and with no clear assets, at all, there would be little to no chance of it getting off the ground, let alone succeeding. I said in an earlier post that I thought it may be possible for them to pay any balance for the assets, or perhaps just Ibrox, but that would require, I'm sure, a quick decision and acceptance by the club of BDO's position if fraud is proven.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

I didn't notice anything about this on Reporting Scotland.

BBC truce

[Dutchmul]

This just gets better and better. I believe that the current investigations by plod relate to the purchase of the assets by sevco scotland(chuckles and the gang of spivs), when the admins(duff and duffer) made an agreement to sell the assets to sevco 5088(craigy's company), there appeared to be what is known as a "novation" to allow that to happen however, that may be what they are looking at, possibly also the actual price paid for the assets.

 

If it turns out that the assets where sold "incorrectly" shall we say, then ashleys security wont be worth the paper it's printed on wrt murray park, as sevco scotland may not have legally owned the property and therefore could not grant security over it. However, the car park and asbestos house are not in dispute as rifc bought them with the proceeds of the IPO.

 

They may also be investigating the IPO, as a lot of people got their fingers burned and the cost of that ipo(approx 5m) was very high.

[Dutchmul]

That wouldn't stop those shareholders from fighting it every step of the way, causing huge delays and legal expenses.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that IF there's fraud found, by far the simplest, cheapest and most practical way to resolve things in thecorporate world is with a financial settlement.

 

I'm not much of a gambler but I'm confident that the company and/or assets won't be returned to previous owners. Bit it'll be interesting to see how it pans out

 

You are correct that a financial settlement would be the way to go, however, given that sevco survive hand to mouth and on wonga loans as it is, where would that chunk of cash come from? presumably the glib and shameless liar won't stump up because he always prefers to use other peoples money.

[Drumelzier]

Posted Today, 20:20

SUTOL, on 01 Sept 2015 - 6:45 PM, said:

I didn't notice anything about this on Reporting Scotland.

 

BBC truce

 

When it comes to this mob the BBC are becoming as tame as North Korean TV News are to JK-un.

 

Edited September 1, 2015 by Drumelzier

[itsnomarooned]

I didn't notice anything about this on Reporting Scotland.

Aye but for balance they decided not to report on anyone else's shambles either.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD