...a bit disco Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Ahem... Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 2m2 minutes ago More Counsel says information in affidavit shows link between King, Glencoe, Sovereign and NOAL. King claims not to be shareholder in Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 16 minutes ago, redjambo said: I've seen that phrase used in court before. It's a coded message from counsel to ask for an extra scone with their tea at the next break. Folks' minds usually go blank when they hear it, since there's no sense in the phrase whatsoever, and the stenographer knows not to add it to the record. Lamont might have opened Pandora's Box by tweeting it! The TOP counsel was only suggesting that if the judge declines to make an order, then there better be good reasons for it, otherwise how is TOP going to be able to enforce their decisions in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NANOJAMBO Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 16 minutes ago, redjambo said: I've seen that phrase used in court before. It's a coded message from counsel to ask for an extra scone with their tea at the next break. Folks' minds usually go blank when they hear it, since there's no sense in the phrase whatsoever, and the stenographer knows not to add it to the record. Lamont might have opened Pandora's Box by tweeting it! I don't understand your point here. Why is there no sense in it and why would the stenographer not record what is being said in open court ? From my reading , what is being said is if the judge rules against enforcing the TOP ruling then he better give good reason and , again , if he doesn't enforce it, how are TOP rulings to be enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 1m1 minute ago More Counsel looking at futility argument by respondent. Takes this to mean that no one would accept an offer of 20 pence per share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: The TOP counsel was only suggesting that if the judge declines to make an order, then there better be good reasons for it, otherwise how is TOP going to be able to enforce their decisions in the future. 5 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said: I don't understand your point here. Why is there no sense in it and why would the stenographer not record what is being said in open court ? From my reading , what is being said is if the judge rules against enforcing the TOP ruling then he better give good reason and , again , if he doesn't enforce it, how are TOP rulings to be enforced. That'll teach me to crack a joke on a serious thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NANOJAMBO Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 1 minute ago, redjambo said: That'll teach me to crack a joke on a serious thread. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 56s56 seconds ago More TP counsel arguing that the only case in which a court order shouldn't back the Code is if it's not in public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 4m4 minutes ago More DK counsel: There is no efficacy to make order. Respondent has no funds to comply with order and offer of 20p will not be accepted. Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 2m2 minutes ago More DK counsel: All relevant assets transferred from Glencoe trust to family trust. At time of SARS settlement, recognised he had no assets... Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 2m2 minutes ago More ....outside family trust. Suggests all DK's assets are family assets. Therefore doesn't personally have £11-12m required to make offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NANOJAMBO Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Just now, ...a bit disco said: Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 4m4 minutes ago More DK counsel: There is no efficacy to make order. Respondent has no funds to comply with order and offer of 20p will not be accepted. Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 2m2 minutes ago More DK counsel: All relevant assets transferred from Glencoe trust to family trust. At time of SARS settlement, recognised he had no assets... Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 2m2 minutes ago More ....outside family trust. Suggests all DK's assets are family assets. Therefore doesn't personally have £11-12m required to make offer. Well he should have abided by the law of the land and stayed below the 30% threshold. Unbelievable excuses being put forward in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 3m3 minutes ago More DK counsel asking how Panel can expect him to make offer with no access to funds, therefore not able to comply with rules governing offers. Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 3m3 minutes ago More DK counsel asking what is the point of the order, in having DK held in contempt of court if he doesn't then comply with order. Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 47s48 seconds ago More DK counsel: Ultimately that would be a criminal offence - a rather dramatic outcome. Proposes no order should be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Mendacious... Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 7m7 minutes ago More Counsel asked by Lord B why DK went ahead and made offer despite being warned by GL about potentially crossing 30% threshold. Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 6m6 minutes ago More DK counsel says perhaps DK wasn't fully aware of significance of consequence of crossing 30% or fully understands GL email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said: Mendacious... Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 7m7 minutes ago More Counsel asked by Lord B why DK went ahead and made offer despite being warned by GL about potentially crossing 30% threshold. Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 6m6 minutes ago More DK counsel says perhaps DK wasn't fully aware of significance of consequence of crossing 30% or fully understands GL email. Ignorance is no defence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 (edited) King's a slippery snake. However he's a fit and proper person. So the the six million rand question is where does the Glib one get his money to provide loans to Sevco? Edited October 12, 2017 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coburg Hearts Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 1h1 hour ago More Lord B asks in relation to claim of no funds whether he should take into account that DK did seem to have control over trusts. Counsel says beneficiary of trust can't order trustees what to do. Sovereign and Glencoe not responsive to whims of DK. Counsel says situation is stark. Does court have discretion? If it does what discretion does it have? Court over for today. Back tomorrow 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdannyb Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 He hasn't got £11m so obviously this means ZombieRangers will soon be in their first Administration ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, kingdannyb said: He hasn't got £11m so obviously this means ZombieRangers will soon be in their first Administration ..... Rumour has it David Murray is waiting on the wings. How true, I couldn't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts First Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Nearly 8 million views. On a Hearts forum. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 24 minutes ago, Hearts First said: Nearly 8 million views. On a Hearts forum. ? to many bitter huns bumping it as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niemi Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Dannie Boy said: King's a slippery snake. However he's a fit and proper person. So the the six million rand question is where does the Glib one get his money to provide loans to Sevco? The trust gives him money, at the trustees' discretion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Hearts First said: Nearly 8 million views. On a Hearts forum. ? So? The cheating, cover up and complicity of the authoritaties are the biggest Scottish football story in living memory. Anyway, of the people who've viewed only a tiny percentage have posted. You're now one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 There isnt much doubt he has the money, he is a slippery character and this is normal operating for him. Quite what his long term plan is remains to be known, but it normally results in pockets being filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts First Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 1 hour ago, ManMoth said: So? The cheating, cover up and complicity of the authoritaties are the biggest Scottish football story in living memory. Anyway, of the people who've viewed only a tiny percentage have posted. You're now one of them. One of the 8 million. Now 2. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, Hearts First said: One of the 8 million. Now 2. ? Ah dive in, the water's lovely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coburg Hearts Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Alasdair Lamont article for BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41604582?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Boy Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 12 hours ago, Hearts First said: Nearly 8 million views. On a Hearts forum. ? Many of them may be just folk moaning about it though... like yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 "But King's own counsel says such an order would be pointless as his client doesn't have access to the £11m-£12m required to underwrite such an offer" I'm sure the good Lord not going to say 'ah well if he's nae money lets abandone the case' I'm sure it will be put up or suffer the contempt of court punishment, what ever that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Hearts First said: One of the 8 million. Now 2. ? What are you on about? You posted a few pages back on this very thread. See pages 1982 & 1983 (possibly others as well, I couldn't be bothered looking any more). Edited October 13, 2017 by redjambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 35 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said: "But King's own counsel says such an order would be pointless as his client doesn't have access to the £11m-£12m required to underwrite such an offer" I'm sure the good Lord not going to say 'ah well if he's nae money lets abandone the case' I'm sure it will be put up or suffer the contempt of court punishment, what ever that is. You've no got any money? Aw sorry mate, you're free to break the law then, I didn't realise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts First Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 48 minutes ago, redjambo said: What are you on about? You posted a few pages back on this very thread. See pages 1982 & 1983 (possibly others as well, I couldn't be bothered looking any more). Do you mind if I don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaths17 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, Hearts First said: Do you mind if I don't? nice , non contributing bump, canny have the cheating huns dropping off the main page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 47 minutes ago, Hearts First said: Do you mind if I don't? Not at all, HF. I just like to call out blatant disingenuity when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 16 hours ago, Hearts First said: Nearly 8 million views. On a Hearts forum. ? go ahead caller, you have the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Coburg Hearts said: Alasdair Lamont article for BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41604582?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland So king's children get their inheritance afterall. The man is a shameless liar and a crook. The SFA deemed him a fit and proper person. Only in Glasgow. Edited October 13, 2017 by John Findlay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 The Hearing has finished. We will probably have to wait for a month or two for a decision though. Not much to report from today’s proceedings. The judge did have concerns about what discretion he had or didn’t have when coming to a decision and I don’t think he was any clearer by the end of the discussions. I guess that he might talk to the Lord President (Lord Carloway) to confirm his understanding of how the law should be applied. However, I hope Lord Bannatyne doesn’t get hung up over the nuances of the law (as the FTTT majority did) and just rules on the facts of the case. If the decision goes in favour of the TOP, then I guess that King could prolong matters by appealing the decision to the Inner House and have the case heard by three judges. King’s counsel did suggest that the judge might want to consider a further proof hearing, to confirm that status of King’s resources and the price to be offered, before making a final judgement. The only quote of note came from the TOP's counsel, when he described King as “not an unwitting innocent “ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) On a separate note, there was another hearing this morning in front of Lord Bannatyne just before the TOP case resumed, with The Football Company (Scotland) Ltd v Glasgow City Council. The case was about the damage to the LED advertising boards during the exuberant scenes that followed the 2016 Cup Final. There were discussions about riotous assembly and an 1822 act. Lord Bannatyne was looking for the parties to go through a mediation process, but neither party was interested in that. The Bowen report was mentioned and I think the judge is looking to view some video evidence. This case probably has some way to go. Edited October 13, 2017 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnomarooned Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Ok then, if the outcome of this is that King (and the other three?) is ordered to make an offer for the shares but he doesn't have the wherewithal to do so .................. what happens then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, itsnomarooned said: Ok then, if the outcome of this is that King (and the other three?) is ordered to make an offer for the shares but he doesn't have the wherewithal to do so .................. what happens then? I think that would make King in contempt of court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, itsnomarooned said: Ok then, if the outcome of this is that King (and the other three?) is ordered to make an offer for the shares but he doesn't have the wherewithal to do so .................. what happens then? I could only guess that King would have to make a plea to the court and prove that he didn't have the ability to access funds, before any judge would consider amending the order in any way. That might be difficult to prove given that it was accepted in court that NOAL did have sufficient funds at its disposal, if required to do so, which then takes you back to the point of King being able to exercise control over how NOAL uses its funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Boris said: I think that would make King in contempt of court. Fine and / or prison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 There is wider implications for all in business that the shareholder is protected for concert parties to takeover a company, the 30% rule needs to be applied, King must be made to find the money or sell up, even if nobody takes up the offer, king still must prove that the funds exist, should it be required. If the court goes in Kings favour, by using Kings doctrine, coupled with a WATP attitude? a lot of people in a lot of companies will lose money and be fairly ripped off. Still a lot of mileage in this yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Is King a court addict? He’s never away from them it seems, Dodgy Dave right enough why you do business with him or let him anywhere your money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalstonjambo Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said: There is wider implications for all in business that the shareholder is protected for concert parties to takeover a company, the 30% rule needs to be applied, King must be made to find the money or sell up, even if nobody takes up the offer, king still must prove that the funds exist, should it be required. If the court goes in Kings favour, by using Kings doctrine, coupled with a WATP attitude? a lot of people in a lot of companies will lose money and be fairly ripped off. Still a lot of mileage in this yet Would agree with this entirely. It's not about Rangers, it's about UK Stock Market laws. If King is let off that opens up every company listed in the UK to use this as a precedent to not adhere to these takeover laws. No way that will be allowed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 King is also using the "I know of no such laws therefor cant be held accountable for breaking them"....ignorance of the law is no excuse???? Yet there is an email from Letham telling him so, so the upshot should be, if you acted in a manner to obtain a company by acting as a concert to the disadvancement of the remaining 70% shareholders, then either go to jail, be forced to sell your shares at whatever the current value is and perhaps still go to jail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, itsnomarooned said: Ok then, if the outcome of this is that King (and the other three?) is ordered to make an offer for the shares but he doesn't have the wherewithal to do so .................. what happens then? I'd make him dispose of some shares or face being charged with contempt of court myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NANOJAMBO Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 52 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: I could only guess that King would have to make a plea to the court and prove that he didn't have the ability to access funds, before any judge would consider amending the order in any way. That might be difficult to prove given that it was accepted in court that NOAL did have sufficient funds at its disposal, if required to do so, which then takes you back to the point of King being able to exercise control over how NOAL uses its funds. If I'm reading JJs latest blog correctly , Kings claim that he cannot compel trustees to give him (access to) money is a complete lie. JJ mentions from documents in the public domain of how King was able to get access to funds to provide a pay day loan for Sevco and was promised access to further funds if required. Forgive me if I demur. The following is an excerpt from the notes that accompanied RIFC’s audited accounts to 30 June 2016: “On 22 May 2015, the company entered into a loan agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited totalling £1.5m repayable in December 2015. Since this date, this loan has been available on demand and New Oasis Asset Limited has advised that they will extend the facilities available whilst the funds are required by the Club. In December 2015, a further loan facility of £3m was agreed, of which £2.2m has been drawn down at the year-end. This amount remains outstanding at 30 June 2016 and is due for repayment in December 2017. New Oasis Asset Limited is a company controlled by the Group Chairman, Mr D King. No interest or fees are to be charged in respect of the facilities and the loan is being provided on an unsecured basis.” King’s affidavit is a farrago of lies. According to the audited accounts King had no problem disbursing ‘freed capital’ from his discretionary trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sraman Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 21 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said: King is also using the "I know of no such laws therefor cant be held accountable for breaking them"....ignorance of the law is no excuse???? Yet there is an email from Letham telling him so, so the upshot should be, if you acted in a manner to obtain a company by acting as a concert to the disadvancement of the remaining 70% shareholders, then either go to jail, be forced to sell your shares at whatever the current value is and perhaps still go to jail I think he's trying to pass GO a few more times to get the money that he thinks he's owed back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Someone ponied up £2 million for that Pena etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdannyb Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Fit and Proper? The SFA are letting this happen again. How?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said: Fine and / or prison Is the normal maximum 2/3 months, in some cases 2 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts