Jump to content

The Sevco saga continues ...


JamboAl

Recommended Posts

Cruickie's Moustache
16 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I listened in to part of the proof hearing at the Coart of Session in the cases of David Grier v The Lord Advocate and The Chief Constable earlier today. Grier is claiming £7m in damages.

 

Lord Tyre has previously ruled that there was no evidential foundation to the charges against Grier, but Grier still needs to prove malice on the part of the police/Crown continuing to pursue the case, to be successful in his claim

 

Grier was in the witness box primarily answering questions from Gerry Moynihan QC who was representing the Lord Advocate.  I thought Grier came across very well and explained his role and involvement in the Whyte takeover, so much so that Moynihan was struggling to pose follow-up questions after Grier explained the context and detail of various email chains that the Crown had been relying upon to pursue the case.

 

One snippet that came out  just before the end of the day was that Grier had secretly recorded one or more of his interviews with the Police (he had checked the legality beforehand).  He was also scathing of the lack of knowledge of financial matters shown by the Police officers involved (Robertson & O'Neill).

 

The case continues tomorrow.

So perhaps at the start more of an incompetent prosecution (by unqualified officers) as opposed to one with malice?? 

You would have hoped the legal minds at the prosecution service would have nipped things in the bud if the Police weren't up to it from the off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Footballfirst

    235

  • Unknown user

    99

  • buzzbomb1958

    78

  • Mysterion

    77

In other news (surprised it wasn't mentioned before) - another day another share issue:

 

https://www.bt.com/sport/news/2021/february/rangers-set-fans-p25m-funds-target-through-new-share-issue

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/6906039/rangers-55m-double-share-issue-fresh-investment/

 

Interesting quote from the story:

 

Quote

And the fan group sent out a rallying cry to supporters to help them buy up £2.5m worth of shares in the Ibrox club by June.

However, they also confirmed that they had been asked by Rangers to provide a "first tranche" of funds in March.

 

Thought they were "rolling in money"... perhaps not? The bail out activities are still frequent at Rangers 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
19 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

In other news (surprised it wasn't mentioned before) - another day another share issue:

 

https://www.bt.com/sport/news/2021/february/rangers-set-fans-p25m-funds-target-through-new-share-issue

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/6906039/rangers-55m-double-share-issue-fresh-investment/

 

Interesting quote from the story:

 

 

Thought they were "rolling in money"... perhaps not? The bail out activities are still frequent at Rangers 2012.

The shareholdings listed on their website show that the £5.45m worth of shares issued during March came from Stuart Gibson £3m, George Taylor £1.5m, George Letham £500k and John Bennett £200k.  The source of the remaining £250k is not recorded.

 

Club 1872 has not contributed to either of the March share issues as their holding is unchanged since they bought £250k worth of shares from Dave King in December.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

In today's hearing a witness, Philip Duffy from Duff & Phelps, confirmed that Jim Robertson, the lead officer in the case, did indeed sing a Rangers song during a police interview, which he also described as bizarre and intimidating at times.

 

It had previously been alleged that Robertson had sung "The Billy Boys", but Duffy recalls that the words of the song included "The Big Hoose". I'm not familiar with the full repertoire of the Rangers songbook, although I know that Ibrox is known as the "Big Hoose".

 

Other D&P witnesses also confirmed that Roberson had threatened to jail them along with their mates if they didn't tell the truth.  

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

In today's hearing a witness, Philip Duffy from Duff & Phelps, confirmed that Jim Robertson, the lead officer in the case, did indeed sing a Rangers song during a police interview, which he also described as bizarre and intimidating at times.

 

It had previously been alleged that Robertson had sung "The Billy Boys", but Duffy recalls that the words of the song included "The Big Hoose". I'm not familiar with the full repertoire of the Rangers songbook, although I know that Ibrox is known as the "Big Hoose".

 

Other D&P witnesses also confirmed that Roberson had threatened to jail them along with their mates if they didn't tell the truth.  

Is the Big Hoose not Barlinnie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Another 20m pieces of confetti issued last week, sorry 20m shares, raising another £4m.  They must be on huge bonuses for stopping 10 in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TypoonJambo said:

Unfair on Kammara I think


if he assaulted him he’s probably got off lightly tbf regardless of how much he deserved it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
1 hour ago, JJ93 said:

What proof do they have that he was racially abused? 

There may have been another player who heard something. 

 

I don't think that UEFA will use the criminal threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  "On the balance of probabilities" is much more likely.

 

I'm sure that they received representations from each of the individuals involved and determined that Kamara's account of him being called a "****ing monkey" was more believable than Kudela's "****ing guy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There may have been another player who heard something. 

 

I don't think that UEFA will use the criminal threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  "On the balance of probabilities" is much more likely.

 

I'm sure that they received representations from each of the individuals involved and determined that Kamara's account of him being called a "****ing monkey" was more believable than Kudela's "****ing guy".

If true, it sets a bad precedent.

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It makes a mockery of claims that penalties are objectively handed out.

 

If there is no proof, he should not be punished. They just want to be seen to do something amid the typical hysteria at mere words being uttered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems pretty clear there were witnesses. Ergo, guilty. 10 games is nowhere near enough., and punching a racist is not  IMHO a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
29 minutes ago, JJ93 said:

If true, it sets a bad precedent.

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It makes a mockery of claims that penalties are objectively handed out.

 

If there is no proof, he should not be punished. They just want to be seen to do something amid the typical hysteria at mere words being uttered. 

Slavia appear to have accepted the decision without protest.

 

https://en.slavia.cz/clanek.asp?id=Slavia-received-UEFA-disciplinary-decision-840

 

Slavia Chairman of the Board Jaroslav Tvrdík said: “Ondřej was suspended for 10 UEFA games and as a club we respect the decision,” adding that “In any case, Ondřej Kúdela should not have approached the opposition player. I deeply regret that and apologise to Glen Kamara for a situation that has clearly caused distress to him and his teammates, as well as everyone associated with Slavia and Rangers. I am taking positive steps to prevent such a situation from happening in our club ever again.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JJ93 said:

If true, it sets a bad precedent.

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It makes a mockery of claims that penalties are objectively handed out.

 

If there is no proof, he should not be punished. They just want to be seen to do something amid the typical hysteria at mere words being uttered. 

 

It would be you defending that racist arsehole :lol: Beyond parody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
1 hour ago, Wilson said:

It seems pretty clear there were witnesses. Ergo, guilty. 10 games is nowhere near enough., and punching a racist is not  IMHO a crime.

Punching anyone racist or not is a crime. The Czech player was in the wrong, and so was Kamara, two wrongs do not make a right.

Verbally abusing someone racist or non racist, is not as bad as physically assaulting someone in my book. Kamara should have received the same punishment as the Czech player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Punching anyone racist or not is a crime. The Czech player was in the wrong, and so was Kamara, two wrongs do not make a right.

Verbally abusing someone racist or non racist, is not as bad as physically assaulting someone in my book. Kamara should have received the same punishment as the Czech player.

 

Totally agree. Moral equivalence is not the job of UEFA, certainly not when it's lopsided as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to stamp out racism. Ten match ban is not enough- a fan would get a life ban.  Kamara equal punishment?. FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
1 minute ago, Wilson said:

We have to stamp out racism. Ten match ban is not enough- a fan would get a life ban.  Kamara equal punishment?. FFS.

Definitely equal punishment. No matter what you are verbally abused, it does not give you the right to physically assault someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Definitely equal punishment. No matter what you are verbally abused, it does not give you the right to physically assault someone.

John, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course assault is wrong, but sometimes provocation should be taken into account in the punishment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
1 minute ago, Wilson said:

John, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course assault is wrong, but sometimes provocation should be taken into account in the punishment. 

It was. That is why Kamara received a three game ban. Which is one game less than Roofe got for kicking the goalie in the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoncurMacdonaldMercer

now that rangers are back at the top of Scottish football will that save them from admin2 or is that still on?

 

seems to have been imminent for a few years but not sure if the cost of getting back to the top is having a greater adverse affect than the reward of getting there ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wilson said:

John, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course assault is wrong, but sometimes provocation should be taken into account in the punishment. 

the problem with what you are saying is the assault i think happened down the tunnel after the match not immediately after the racial abuse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how should Kamara have reacted after being called a "f*ing monkey"  ?  I am all in favour of punching racists (particularly when the authorities do f all about it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moral equivalence is unhelpful. 
 

Racism is wrong. Punching folk is wrong. 
 

However, the temptation for retributive justice is greatly diminished when there is a reasonable hope of justice from the authorities. 
 

The track record of the footballing authorities to deal with racism (and sectarianism) is pathetic. 
 

It is incredibly admirable how many of the victims of racist attacks during football manage to rise above the perpetrators and hold to a non-violent response. When the authorities fail them, it makes it harder for the next victim to do the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

It would be you defending that racist arsehole :lol: Beyond parody

And only you would think that fair 'judicial' treatment is wrong for those you think are guilty without evidence. 

 

You, sir, are beyond parody. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tokyowalnut
52 minutes ago, JJ93 said:

And only you would think that fair 'judicial' treatment is wrong for those you think are guilty without evidence. 

 

You, sir, are beyond parody. 

You are being quite forthright in your claims that there is no evidence? Do you know what has been produced to UEFA? The fact that Prague have accepted the charge tells me that there is concrete evidence of an offence. Perhaps one of his own team mates backed up what happened to Kamara?

 

10 games is a joke of a sentence. It was a premeditated action.  I do think if Kamara has been physical then it is justified that he gets a ban of sorts, but claims above from another poster saying they should have the same punishment, to me, is ludicrous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JJ93 said:

And only you would think that fair 'judicial' treatment is wrong for those you think are guilty without evidence. 

 

You, sir, are beyond parody. 

 

The minute he covered his mouth his guilt was sealed for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
2 hours ago, tokyowalnut said:

You are being quite forthright in your claims that there is no evidence? Do you know what has been produced to UEFA? The fact that Prague have accepted the charge tells me that there is concrete evidence of an offence. Perhaps one of his own team mates backed up what happened to Kamara?

 

10 games is a joke of a sentence. It was a premeditated action.  I do think if Kamara has been physical then it is justified that he gets a ban of sorts, but claims above from another poster saying they should have the same punishment, to me, is ludicrous. 

Why ludicrous? Kamara waited until after the game and attacked and physically assaulted the Czech player in the tunnel. As much as the Czech player's verbal assault was pre- meditated, so was Kamara's physical assault in the tunnel.

Yes I firmly believe Kamara should have received the same punishment, provocation or not.

I re-iterate two wrongs do not make a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Why ludicrous? Kamara waited until after the game and attacked and physically assaulted the Czech player in the tunnel. As much as the Czech player's verbal assault was pre- meditated, so was Kamara's physical assault in the tunnel.

Yes I firmly believe Kamara should have received the same punishment, provocation or not.

I re-iterate two wrongs do not make a right.

 

How bad was the assault? A shove and slap or a punch in the face leaving blood?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JJ93 said:

And only you would think that fair 'judicial' treatment is wrong for those you think are guilty without evidence. 

 

You, sir, are beyond parody. 

 

"Without evidence" :rofl:

 

And it's not a court you melt, it's UEFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tokyowalnut said:

You are being quite forthright in your claims that there is no evidence? Do you know what has been produced to UEFA? The fact that Prague have accepted the charge tells me that there is concrete evidence of an offence. Perhaps one of his own team mates backed up what happened to Kamara?

 

10 games is a joke of a sentence. It was a premeditated action.  I do think if Kamara has been physical then it is justified that he gets a ban of sorts, but claims above from another poster saying they should have the same punishment, to me, is ludicrous. 

I am going by what I read and there is no mention of evidence and, as ever, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

As Christopher Hitchens once said: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

But as others have said, if players in his own squad have said that he did it then behind closed doors it may be accepted by the club. Nonetheless, from what I read, there is no evidence for UEFA to punish him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

"Without evidence" :rofl:

 

And it's not a court you melt, it's UEFA.

To be honest, I don't think you really understand much based on your drivel on every thread so I'm not going to bother lowering myself to your level of understanding. No need to reply. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
2 hours ago, kila said:

 

How bad was the assault? A shove and slap or a punch in the face leaving blood?

 

That hasnt been disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
40 minutes ago, JJ93 said:

To be honest, I don't think you really understand much based on your drivel on every thread so I'm not going to bother lowering myself to your level of understanding. No need to reply. Thanks.

You know he's legally trained eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

That hasnt been disclosed.

 

It were a mere slap on the face, would you still advocate for a >10 game ban?

 

Think the level of 'assault' is important when deciding if that was worse than the racist remarks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tokyowalnut said:

You are being quite forthright in your claims that there is no evidence? Do you know what has been produced to UEFA? The fact that Prague have accepted the charge tells me that there is concrete evidence of an offence. Perhaps one of his own team mates backed up what happened to Kamara?

 

10 games is a joke of a sentence. It was a premeditated action.  I do think if Kamara has been physical then it is justified that he gets a ban of sorts, but claims above from another poster saying they should have the same punishment, to me, is ludicrous. 

 

Why is it ludicrous? Kamara battering him in the tunnel was a premeditated action as well. It certainly wasn't a knee jerk reaction. 

 

Edit: sorry, I see this has been done already.

Edited by Awbdy Oot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
3 hours ago, kila said:

 

It were a mere slap on the face, would you still advocate for a >10 game ban?

 

Think the level of 'assault' is important when deciding if that was worse than the racist remarks.

 

Yes. Somehow I think it was more than that.

Kamara doing it in the tunnel after the game, made it a pre-meditated act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, John Findlay said:

Yes. Somehow I think it was more than that.

Kamara doing it in the tunnel after the game, made it a pre-meditated act.

I think Kamara said that he wishes he had walked off the pitch and if a few had joined him then that would have been more effective. Really ground breaking Rangers taking the moral high ground and I await their abhorrence of sectarian abuse once their fans return. I have always referred to them as bastions! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex member of the SaS

Can we move this to a thread of it's own. Racism is abhorrent but this thread is about the demise of Sevco ( hopefully ) and I keep opening it hoping to find some nice wee posts saying they have gone bust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

club that had to play without fans last season(?) for a game or two due to “racist and sectarian” singing is now up in arms about racism because the it’s against one of their own. Classic Glasgow team mindset.

 

Everyone saying there must be proof the player racially abused another please remember as a white person accused of racism you are automatically guilty without evidence. Welcome to 2021.

 

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, oritem8 said:

club that had to play without fans last season(?) for a game or two due to “racist and sectarian” singing is now up in arms about racism because the it’s against one of their own. Classic Glasgow team mindset.

 

Everyone saying there must be proof the player racially abused another please remember as a white person accused of racism you are automatically guilty without evidence. Welcome to 2021.

 

  

 

Paragraph 1, correct.

 

Paragraph 2, crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Club 1872 confirmed this morning that they acquired 2.15m newly issued shares in RIFC for £430,000.

 

They do appear to have upped the level of interest through their membership, although it still seems fanciful that they will hit their target of raising £2.5m by the end of June which is only 10 weeks away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Club 1872 confirmed this morning that they acquired 2.15m newly issued shares in RIFC for £430,000.

 

They do appear to have upped the level of interest through their membership, although it still seems fanciful that they will hit their target of raising £2.5m by the end of June which is only 10 weeks away.

 

Wonder how many people are pledging? 

They indicated 1500 new legacy contributors and that idea seems to be variations of a £500 contribution and £10 p/m. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Footballfirst

BDO, the liquidators of RFC, are currently suing Duff & Phelps at the Court of Session for failing to get the best deal for the creditors of the Oldco.  They are seeking damages amounting to £56.8m.

 

I listened into a bit of the hearing yesterday and today and the strategy from BDO seems to be that D&P could have sold all the saleable assets (mainly players) rather than go down the route of seeking a CVA or asset sale. The strategy seems to be to show that many £millions more could have been generated on a breakup value, rather than trying to save the club. By choosing the route that they went down, the most valuable players were allowed to walk away for nothing after opting not to accept a TUPE transfer to Sevco.  It seems that the D&P people were split on the best approach.

 

The squad valuations (average of 4/5 football agents estimates) in January 2012 (a month before administration) included the following:

 

McGregor £5.1m

Whittaker £1.95m

Wallace £1.2m

Davis £4.8m  

Edu £0.9m

Wylde £0.4m

Naismith £4.5m

Lafferty £1.9m

Fleck £0.3m

Aluko £0.25m

Broadfoot £0

 

There was a fairly lengthy discussion about Naismith. He had negotiated a reduced buy out clause of £2m in return for accepting a wage cut of 75% during the administration. A few days later WBA put in a bid of £1m for him, which was increased to £1.25m, then £1.5m and finally £1.7m at which point the bid was allowed to lapse after RFC insisted on the £2m.

 

The QC for BDO indicated that Naismith could end up giving evidence himself.

 

Other discussions touched on the 5 Way Agreement just before the end of the day.  I'm hoping to hear more about that tomorrow, or later when Rod Mackenzie (SPFL solicitor) gives evidence. We might even hear about Charles Green's switcheroo when he shafted Craig Whyte.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

BDO, the liquidators of RFC, are currently suing Duff & Phelps at the Court of Session for failing to get the best deal for the creditors of the Oldco.  They are seeking damages amounting to £56.8m.

 

I listened into a bit of the hearing yesterday and today and the strategy from BDO seems to be that D&P could have sold all the saleable assets (mainly players) rather than go down the route of seeking a CVA or asset sale. The strategy seems to be to show that many £millions more could have been generated on a breakup value, rather than trying to save the club. By choosing the route that they went down, the most valuable players were allowed to walk away for nothing after opting not to accept a TUPE transfer to Sevco.  It seems that the D&P people were split on the best approach.

 

The squad valuations (average of 4/5 football agents estimates) in January 2012 (a month before administration) included the following:

 

McGregor £5.1m

Whittaker £1.95m

Wallace £1.2m

Davis £4.8m  

Edu £0.9m

Wylde £0.4m

Naismith £4.5m

Lafferty £1.9m

Fleck £0.3m

Aluko £0.25m

Broadfoot £0

 

There was a fairly lengthy discussion about Naismith. He had negotiated a reduced buy out clause of £2m in return for accepting a wage cut of 75% during the administration. A few days later WBA put in a bid of £1m for him, which was increased to £1.25m, then £1.5m and finally £1.7m at which point the bid was allowed to lapse after RFC insisted on the £2m.

 

The QC for BDO indicated that Naismith could end up giving evidence himself.

 

Other discussions touched on the 5 Way Agreement just before the end of the day.  I'm hoping to hear more about that tomorrow, or later when Rod Mackenzie (SPFL solicitor) gives evidence. We might even hear about Charles Green's switcheroo when he shafted Craig Whyte.

 

Dull yin for Broadfoot.

:rofl:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mysterion
20 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

BDO, the liquidators of RFC, are currently suing Duff & Phelps at the Court of Session for failing to get the best deal for the creditors of the Oldco. 

 

Rangers insolvency is a prime example of where splitting and selling off the parts would have created more value. 

 

It's an incredible moment in Scottish football history as separating Ibrox from the club could have potentially created decades of pain in the same way that Leeds lost control of their ground.

 

More's the pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • cosanostra changed the title to Sevco are as stupid as we thought

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...