The Sevco saga continues ...

[Big Slim Stylee]

On 20/05/2020 at 17:12, jock _turd said:

 

I don't like them BUT you are talking rubbish! If either of these two teams had access to the kind of money there is in the EPL they would be doing much better in the Euro sphere and one of the two has actually won the big un. You have to consider the teams the play against and then look at the numbers of bums they have on seats... not bad at all even compared to 95 % of the EPL. The same of course could be said for some of the other teams in Scotland the major issue is they are starved of funds. You really have to look at some of the teams in the EPL and reassess what you term as big teams there are some tiddlers getting bid money to make them look like they are something.... 

 

But they don’t have access to it. Nor will they ever. All they have is a bunch of aging ex-pats in North America and various points around Anzac who are if anything more rabid and sad than the cretins they left behind. 
 

I’ve lived among them. They’re awful.

[graygo]

13 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

The SPFL need to stop pandering to the two cheeks.

its reported that all games between the two arse cheeks could be deferred till 2021, presumably to cater for more fans being able to access.

This after major sporting attendance was delayed till after the last cheek game.

 

If the two cheeks have to play a game each at home behind closed doors then sp be it, or should every club be able to dictate who they play at home behind closed doors?

 

Don't think that happened.

[Beast Boy]

The sheep squealing about needing to break the OF domination of our league, when it was his club voting with Celtic that prevented us taking the necessary first step to doing so.

[IveSeenTheLight]

5 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

The sheep squealing about needing to break the OF domination of our league, when it was his club voting with Celtic that prevented us taking the necessary first step to doing so.

be specific SOD

[IveSeenTheLight]

9 hours ago, graygo said:

 

Don't think that happened.

‘You’re correct, they had initially tried to delay restricting events greater than 500 in alignment with the UK with an upcoming cheek game pending, before finally succumbing on the Friday before.

I recall now as I had just set off and heard on the lunchtime news that our game v Motherwell was cancelled.

[Ex member of the SaS]

2 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

be specific SOD

You seriously suggesting you don't know? Aberdeen sided with Celtic and their vote meant the arse cheek duopoly stayed with the 11 to 1 voting system. All the other clubs were up for changing the voting system that would remove the duopoly.

 

PS this was when Sevco were out of the Premiership 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Ex member of the SaS

[Unknown user]

8 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

The sheep squealing about needing to break the OF domination of our league, when it was his club voting with Celtic that prevented us taking the necessary first step to doing so.

 

We didnt need to in the end because only 2 votes were needed to kill it, but we announced we'd planned to vote that way too over fears about sharing gates.

We're in no position to point at Aberdeen on this one. 

[Unknown user]

27 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

You seriously suggesting you don't know? Aberdeen sided with Celtic and their vote meant the arse cheek duopoly stayed with the 11 to 1 voting system. All the other clubs were up for changing the voting system that would remove the duopoly.

 

PS this was when Sevco were out of the Premiership 

 

We weren't 

[CJGJ]

3 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

be specific SOD

You don't remember your clubs history then ?..oh and only a few years ago at that..or do you just want to pretend it did not happen ?

 

Aberdeen had the chance to change the voting structure and 'wiggy and co' bottled it or were lets just say given help to support Celtic

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/moves-to-change-spl-voting-structure-1393897

[Beast Boy]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

We didnt need to in the end because only 2 votes were needed to kill it, but we announced we'd planned to vote that way too over fears about sharing gates.

We're in no position to point at Aberdeen on this one. 

No, mate. That’s not what happened. I emailed the club at the time and asked what they planned to do. We had concerns over gate sharing, but we we hadn’t decided to vote to keep the 11-1. In the end we voted to change the voting structure, I think. By that point it was too late though anyway, as Aberdeen had ****ed us all, by siding with Celtic.

 

Ive tried searching for the email but I think I must have deleted it. I’ll have another look. Think Kilmarnock abstained or voted in favour of keeping it too.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

No, mate. That’s not what happened. I emailed the club at the time and asked what they planned to do. We had concerns over gate sharing, but we we hadn’t decided to vote to keep the 11-1. In the end we voted to change the voting structure, I think. By that point it was too late though anyway, as Aberdeen had ****ed us all, by siding with Celtic.

 

Ive tried searching for the email but I think I must have deleted it. I’ll have another look. Think Kilmarnock abstained or voted in favour of keeping it too.

We announced it, we didn't vote, I'm sure of it.

[SUTOL]

12 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

We didnt need to in the end because only 2 votes were needed to kill it, but we announced we'd planned to vote that way too over fears about sharing gates.

We're in no position to point at Aberdeen on this one. 

 

Sharing gates would be a forward thinking way of helping the league become a bit more competitive, no wonder some won't consider even discussing it. 

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

We announced it, we didn't vote, I'm sure of it.

At the point when I emailed, Aberdeen had already signalled their intention to vote to keep it, and Kilmarnock to abstain. The reply said that they were undecided at that point, as they were worried about gate sharing (I think - this is about eight years ago now!), but Aberdeen/Kilmarnock signalling that they were voting against change made our vote meaningless. I’m pretty sure we eventually voted to change it.

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, SUTOL said:

 

Sharing gates would be a forward thinking way of helping the league become a bit more competitive, no wonder some won't consider even discussing it. 

Some kind of compromise where it wasn’t 50/50 perhaps, but to me it’s still a wee bit St Johnstoney. Surviving off the fans of other clubs. 

[Boof]

1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

At the point when I emailed, Aberdeen had already signalled their intention to vote to keep it, and Kilmarnock to abstain. The reply said that they were undecided at that point, as they were worried about gate sharing (I think - this is about eight years ago now!), but Aberdeen/Kilmarnock signalling that they were voting against change made our vote meaningless. I’m pretty sure we eventually voted to change it.

 

Shows a bit of a lack of vision. If there were enough clubs so worried about gate-sharing that hey shat the bed about changing the world's most ridiculous voting structure then there surely would've been enough to vote against gate-sharing if such a vote ever arose. Especially so once Sevco managed to make it into the top league for the first time.

[Beast Boy]

2 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

Shows a bit of a lack of vision. If there were enough clubs so worried about gate-sharing that hey shat the bed about changing the world's most ridiculous voting structure then there surely would've been enough to vote against gate-sharing if such a vote ever arose. Especially so once Sevco managed to make it into the top league for the first time.

In my last reply, I’m sure I said that changing it to 9-3 would be sufficient to mitigate against this, as the OF, Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen would never vote for that to happen.

[SUTOL]

1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Some kind of compromise where it wasn’t 50/50 perhaps, but to me it’s still a wee bit St Johnstoney. Surviving off the fans of other clubs. 

 

I've never thought it should be 50/50, I'm not sure if it was 50/50 before or how it worked. But something to help incentivise away fans to go and support their team. Which would be derived from the % of tickets available for the fans at the opponents ground.

 

 

[Boof]

3 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

In my last reply, I’m sure I said that changing it to 9-3 would be sufficient to mitigate against this, as the OF, Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen would never vote for that to happen.

 

It's so ****ing obvious there must be some  other reason it didn't happen - or maybe just Aberdeen doing as their master tells them.

[Beast Boy]

6 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

I've never thought it should be 50/50, I'm not sure if it was 50/50 before or how it worked. But something to help incentivise away fans to go and support their team. Which would be derived from the % of tickets available for the fans at the opponents ground.

 

 

Can’t find the email transcript, so I don’t want to argue too vehemently either way, based on my pish memory.  

 

4 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

It's so ****ing obvious there must be some  other reason it didn't happen - or maybe just Aberdeen doing as their master tells them.

Knowing those tedious delusional wanksocks, they probably thought they’d be the new Rangers at the top of the pile.

[IveSeenTheLight]

1 hour ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

You seriously suggesting you don't know? Aberdeen sided with Celtic and their vote meant the arse cheek duopoly stayed with the 11 to 1 voting system. All the other clubs were up for changing the voting system that would remove the duopoly.

 

PS this was when Sevco were out of the Premiership 

 

You may wish to look up what the vote was for, what it included and what Hearts position was.

It's not as simple as the headline you believe

[IveSeenTheLight]

31 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

You don't remember your clubs history then ?..oh and only a few years ago at that..or do you just want to pretend it did not happen ?

 

Aberdeen had the chance to change the voting structure and 'wiggy and co' bottled it or were lets just say given help to support Celtic

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/moves-to-change-spl-voting-structure-1393897

 

Again, look beyond the headline and understand what was included in the vote

[IveSeenTheLight]

39 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

We didnt need to in the end because only 2 votes were needed to kill it, but we announced we'd planned to vote that way too over fears about sharing gates.

We're in no position to point at Aberdeen on this one. 

 

This man gets it

[CJGJ]

4 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

 

This man gets it

I see ..so a bit like Dundee then who announced one thing and did the other

 

That would never happen with someone like Vlad in charge of Hearts

[Ex member of the SaS]

1 hour ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

 

You may wish to look up what the vote was for, what it included and what Hearts position was.

It's not as simple as the headline you believe

So you do know. Why ask SoD  if you knew all along? 

[redjambo]

8 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

So you do know. Why ask SoD  if you knew all along? 

 

Usually that happens if either (i) the person is not actually that confident in what they're proposing, (ii) the person is being an arse.

 

I'll plump for the latter. I actually thought when I saw his post "Why doesn't he actually come out with his version of events and save all the fannying around?"

[IveSeenTheLight]

1 hour ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

So you do know. Why ask SoD  if you knew all along? 

 

59 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Usually that happens if either (i) the person is not actually that confident in what they're proposing, (ii) the person is being an arse.

 

I'll plump for the latter. I actually thought when I saw his post "Why doesn't he actually come out with his version of events and save all the fannying around?"

Neither actually.

I was unclear whether he meant the vote in 2012 or the vote this time to complete the lower leagues.

 

With regards to clarifying the detail regarding the 2012 vote, I’ve done so many times previously

Edited May 25, 2020 by IveSeenTheLight

[Jambo-Fox]

Where’s the PFA when you need them?

The vocal Fraser Wishart?

 

Reported that Sevco players take a 50% wage deferral to help the club! So what do Sevco do? Spend it on signing a player! Sure the fee will be spread over a long period but surely there must some upfront payment. I’m sure the current players feel good their wages are being wisely spent!

 

PFA Fraser Wishart we can’t hear you!

[Footballfirst]

The Duff and Phelps administrators have been awarded interim expenses payments and the Lord Advocate has admitted that they were subject to malicious prosecution for fraud.  That could end up as a very expensive prosecution for the Crown Office. 

 

(note that the SPFL's QC, Gerry Moynihan was acting for the Lord Advocate)

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18677022.scotlands-top-law-officer-admits-malicious-prosecution-rangers-fraud-case/

 

Quote

SCOTLAND'S most senior law officer has admitted malicious prosecution of the former administrators of Rangers in connection with the collapsed club fraud case.

In an unprecedented development the Lord Advocate has also admitted a breach of human rights in the investigation which has led to the former administrators conducting a multi-million pound damages claim to clear their names.

It came in a fast-tracked lawsuit by David Whitehouse and Paul Clark who are suing both the Lord Advocate and the Chief Constable.

Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark, who were joint administrators at the Ibrox club in 2012 following its takeover by Craig Whyte, have been awarded a huge interim expenses award of £350,000 and £250,000 respectively by Lord Tyre.

Iain Ferguson QC for Mr Clark described the government's actions in pursuit of the men as "nothing short of a disgrace".

The case comes three years after former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, who was the last man standing in the fraud conspiracy case, was acquitted of taking over the club by fraud at the end of a seven-week trial.

Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark from Duff and Phelps faced criminal proceedings with others in the wake of Mr Whyte's purchase of Rangers from Sir David Murray for a £1 and its subsequent sale before a judge dismissed the charges.

Mr Whitehouse, of Cheshire, subsequently brought a damages claim against the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC and the former chief constable of Police Scotland, Phil Gormley, for £9m. Mr Clark, of Surrey, sued for £5m.

Their actions stemmed from their alleged treatment by the police and prosecution authorities.

It is claimed that at no stage was there any justification for their detention, committal or prosecution and that the Crown never had sufficient evidence for any of the charges it brought.

Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark won a ruling from a specially convened bench of five judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year that the Lord Advocate did not have absolute immunity from a civil damages claim in such circumstances.

Now Gerry Moynihan QC, for the Lord Advocate, says the Lord Advocate's "preferred solution" was now to "mediate the claims".

Mr Ferguson said:"Frankly, it is nothing short of a disgrace that the government has behaved in this fashion to private citizens who it now accepts should never have been prosecuted. It is only because of the determination of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse to clear their names that this situation has come about and the bottom line is that less wealthy individuals would never have reached this point.

"That is completely unacceptable."

Roddy Dunlop QC, for Mr Whitehouse said in court: "We now see that the Crown did maliciously and without probable cause prosecuted both of these gentlemen. The acceptance is welcome."

The development comes four years after London-based legal firm Holman Fenwick Willan, who were acting for Duff and Phelps, was awarded £500,000 costs after police and prosecutors were found by the High Court in London to have "abused state powers" by carrying out an illegal raid and seizing privileged documents in connection with the failed Rangers fraud case.

It emerged earlier this month that former Rangers director Imran Ahmad was to receive a public apology from the head of Scotland's prosecution service and significant damages after he was wrongly pursued prosecution on fraud charges.

He initially wanted £2m in damages but it is understood he is now claiming tens of millions of pounds.

Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is also suing Police Scotland for wrongful arrest after charges against him were dropped.

In October, last year Scotland's senior judge, the Lord President, Lord Carloway, overturned a previous court decision that the Lord Advocate was immune from the legal action by Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark.

"Privilege is not a defence to malicious prosecution," he said.

The Lord Advocate and chief constable had been contesting the actions.

Mr Moynihan confirmed that the Lord Advocate had conducted a "fundamental and comprehensive review" of the case after Lord Carloway's ruling.

"That has culminated in a minute of amendment that admits liability for a malicious prosecution...," he said.

"Secondly it admits a breach of Article 5 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] in relation to the period in custody of the police following the expiry of the statutory detention period.  And finally it admits a breach of Article 8 [of the ECHR] with the respect of the publication of a press circular in February, 2016."

He also said that he would admit "a lack of probable cause".

Mr Moynihan also said it "cannot be said... that the Lord Advocate has been unreasonable in his conduct of this case".

In June, last year, the Herald revealed the Crown Office paid compensation estimated at £80,000 to Mr Whitehouse and his wife over the granting of a restraint order over his assets which Scotland's chief legal officer admitted was "wrongful".

The Whitehouses had said that the granting of a restraint order in connection with the Rangers fraud case, which was eventually reversed, led to a loss in a particular investment opportunity, issues with making financial transactions and that they suffered a "loss of reputation, anxiety and distress".

A judgment by Lord Brodie over the release of papers involved in the case, revealed that the Lord Advocate admitted that actions in applying for the restraint order against the Whitehouses in December, 2015 were "wrongful in the respect of a failure to discharge the duty of disclosure and candour as found by the judge when recalling the order". The Lord Advocate at the time was Lord Mulholland.

Lord Glennie, one of Scotland's senior judges reversed the granting by Lord Clarke of a Proceeds of Crime restraint order over the assets of Mr Whitehouse and his wife.

In his ruling, Lord Glennie said the court were previously not told that there had been a period of 13 months of suspicion-free activity while Mr Whitehouse, who was Manchester-based managing director with Duff and Phelps, was subject of the Rangers fraud investigation.

He said the Crown were responsible for "a clear and very serious breach of the duty of disclosure and candour" in getting the restraint order.

The Crown Office had claimed Mr Whitehouse had benefitted from the proceeds of crime having been paid personally £3.1m for the administration, and that he had had a share of the proceeds of MCR, a UK-based restructuring and turnaround firm which was bought over by Duff and Phelps, which had advised Mr Whyte on his controversial takeover.

One of the key tenets of the Crown case was Mr Whyte's scheme in advance of the takeover, to sell off rights to three years of future season tickets to investment firm Ticketus in a bid to raise £24 million and pay off debt as part of a share purchase agreement with Sir David Murray.

Lord Glennie in his judgment had said he had been shown documents by Mr Whitehouse's QC that make it clear administration fees were paid to his employer Duff and Phelps.

The claims case has been adjourned for two weeks.
 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Footballfirst

[Footballfirst]

Also from the Record .........   which shows why the cases against everyone bar Craig Whyte were dropped.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-administrators-awarded-600k-after-22581443

 

Quote

 

The court heard that the businessmen’s legal teams have been supplied with documents which show senior Crown Office lawyers speaking about the “need to nail the Duff & Phelps people” - both Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark worked for Duff & Phelps.

However, Mr Clark’s lawyer Iain Ferguson QC told the court that he knows meetings were chaired by the then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC in which “strategic” decisions were taken about the case.

Mr Mulholland is now a judge - Lord Mulholland. However, Mr Ferguson said that no minutes of these meetings appeared to exist. This means he is unable to discover what was discussed.

Mr Ferguson condemned the Crown’s conduct in the case. He told the court that his client had spent £1,030,000 in legal expenses. Earlier, Mr Whitehouse’s lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC said his client had spent the “eye watering” amount of £1.8 million on lawyer’s fees.

Speaking following the Crown admission, Mr Ferguson called on Lord Tyre to make an interim award to the two men.

He said: “It is nothing short of a disgrace that the government has chosen to act in this fashion towards two private citizens.
 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Footballfirst

[Diadora Van Basten]

Did Imran Ahmad do a runner when the court case started?

 

I read Craig Whyte’s book and if believed the Police behaviour seemed quite bizarre and ridiculously aggressive.

 

You kind of got the feeling they were Rangers fans with a grudge.

[Footballfirst]

3 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Did Imran Ahmad do a runner when the court case started?

 

I read Craig Whyte’s book and if believed the Police behaviour seemed quite bizarre and ridiculously aggressive.

 

You kind of got the feeling they were Rangers fans with a grudge.

Yes, Yes and Yes and that is the problem that both the Crown Office and the Police are facing now with the cases against them.

[Mikey1874]

 

[Don Dan]

Just about to dredge this saga up but it’s been done for me. 
It’s  been an expensive venture and it’s not over yet. 

[Deevers]

1 hour ago, Boy Daniel said:

Just about to dredge this saga up but it’s been done for me. 
It’s  been an expensive venture and it’s not over yet. 

No surprise. These bitter, angry “people” Infest even the upper levels of Scottish society. Anywhere else, this would be a scandal, followed by sackings and court action. Not here though, and that in its self tells you so much about the way this country operates.

[DETTY29]

Hope all the lodges notably those members that make up the fabric of the Scottish legal and police system are having a whip round at every meeting to pay for this crap.

 

 

[Fort Vallance]

Aye but where's the deeds ?

[Niemi’s gloves]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Hope all the lodges notably those members that make up the fabric of the Scottish legal and police system are having a whip round at every meeting to pay for this crap.

 

 

 

 

The Lord Advocate at the time, Francis Mulholland, now Lord Mulholland, doesn’t sound like a lodge member

[DETTY29]

10 minutes ago, Niemi’s gloves said:

 

 

The Lord Advocate at the time, Francis Mulholland, now Lord Mulholland, doesn’t sound like a lodge member

There is that.

 

Maybe had no choice to get to where he did.

 

[Deevers]

5 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

There is that.

 

Maybe had no choice to get to where he did.

 

All spun to make the thick believe that they are fierce rivals. The truth is though at a business level they are as thick as thieves. 

[lost in space]

27 minutes ago, Niemi’s gloves said:

 

 

The Lord Advocate at the time, Francis Mulholland, now Lord Mulholland, doesn’t sound like a lodge member

Aye, but what school did he go to?

The West of Scotland is so tragic and showing no signs of change.

[hearts151]

Lol! 

 

"Earlier, Mr Whitehouse’s lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC said his client had spent the “eye watering” amount of £1.8 million on lawyer’s fees." 

 

- before skipping gleefully back to his seat. 

[Tott]

1 hour ago, lost in space said:

Aye, but what school did he go to?

The West of Scotland is so tragic and showing no signs of change.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Tott

[3fingersreid]

9 hours ago, Niemi’s gloves said:

 

 

The Lord Advocate at the time, Francis Mulholland, now Lord Mulholland, doesn’t sound like a lodge member

Maybe in the Knights of Saint Columba though 

[Ex member of the SaS]

The down side to all of this is the Hun fans will be claiming they should never have been demoted and all the dodgy titles really are theirs.

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The down side to all of this is the Hun fans will be claiming they should never have been demoted and all the dodgy titles really are theirs.

The simple answer to that is that all the claims relate to the Crown and the Police's actions after the club went bust. 

 

There was a reason that it was sold for £1. It was already doomed.

[SUTOL]

15 hours ago, Deevers said:

All spun to make the thick believe that they are fierce rivals. The truth is though at a business level they are as thick as thieves. 

 

 

Old (firm) Friends. 

[andi17]

1 hour ago, SUTOL said:

 

 

Old (firm) Friends. 

CORRECT 

[Glamorgan Jambo]

It’s ironic that if the likes of Green, Ahmad and Whyte were behind the mystery shareholders of Sevco (Blue Pitch Holdings etc) they’ll make more money out of compensation than they ever did from their now diluted to irrelevance shares. PS not sure Whyte has taken action as his case actually made it to court.

[Footballfirst]

There haven't been many updates lately.

 

However, another 42,250,000 shares were issued in RIFC on 30 September @20p a share, raising £8,450,000

Don't know who has bought them yet.  The new shares represent approx 14% of the total shares now issued.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history

 

[Auldbenches]

27 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There haven't been many updates lately.

 

However, another 42,250,000 shares were issued in RIFC on 30 September @20p a share, raising £8,450,000

Don't know who has bought them yet.  The new shares represent approx 14% of the total shares now issued.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history

 

Probably putting 2+2 and getting 5 but with rangers you don't know.  Is it a wee but suspicious that their new strip supplier is owned by two guys from liverpool and this is by far the biggest contract they've ever had? Though it might be their first deal with a club.  Asking due to Gerrard being there. 

You can understand the suspicion...