The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Confusing me with TEDI and No8. Again. No confusion. We all know you were banned for racism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Sarver aside, anyone out there from a fairly neutral persuasion have any rough idea of the implications to rangers/sevco (if any) should White or Green do get found guilty on any fraud charges here? Some of a Rangers persuasion reckon only the accused personally would be penalised whilst others think otherwise. I appreciate there may not be a lot of lawyers out there guys and girls but the thread is a bit tit for tat just now. Scroll back. This has been dealt with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim999 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Scroll back. This has been dealt with. In some ways it has. I know it's pishing into a breeze and it's not P&B's nature but for you personally for example, are you in the least bit worried about any negative outcome for Green or White affecting your club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Scroll back. This has been dealt with. Dealt with like the banned song book at Ibrox or actually dealt with? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Bill Miller, in all likelihood, would have been the best option and not burned through £millions in achieving absofuckinglutely nothing. Mercifully he got chased away from taking over. Not only did Miller back off once he looked it over, d and P were only selling to one person and I'm sure it was reported that miller wanted certain guarantees from the SPL over SPL football but you apparently know better..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 No confusion. We all know you were banned for racism. News to me chump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Ahh! Bill Miller, those were the days! Those were the days before the clumpany fairy-tales. A time when the Old-Rangers fans knew that liquidation was the end. Boy did they not like his plans. Say no to liquidation was the mantra. I wonder if they've still got those banners? Yours aDONis Edited January 5, 2016 by aDONisSheep 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 In some ways it has. I know it's pishing into a breeze and it's not P&B's nature but for you personally for example, are you in the least bit worried about any negative outcome for Green or White affecting your club? Paying a bloke to sit in court and tweet about a fraud case is the real story here. I've said above that there is no implication for Rangers whatever the outcome of this trial. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Paying a bloke to sit in court and tweet about a fraud case is the real story here. I've said above that there is no implication for Rangers whatever the outcome of this trial. I've no idea what might or might not happen but is it not within the bounds of possibility that any assets fraudulently purchased might be returned to the liquidators? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I've no idea what might or might not happen but is it not within the bounds of possibility that any assets fraudulently purchased might be returned to the liquidators? You're doing The Applepines' work for them here, DA. This is the 'buying a stolen car' analogy I referred to earlier and has as much credibility as Mixu has in his own dressing room. Any comment on the Yins paying a bloke to tweet about wee Craigy's day in court? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Paying a bloke to sit in court and tweet about a fraud case is the real story here. I've said above that there is no implication for Rangers whatever the outcome of this trial. It really isn't any sort of story, let alone THE story here. I don't know of anyone who's contributed to Doleman's expedition. It's not remotely relevant to me or the vast bulk of those interested in the outcome of proceedings. Genuine question, because I've no real personal grasp of such matters at all: How come, there's no implication? I understand why it's potentially catastrophic for those in the dock. If Sevco was created by the fraudulent purchase of assets though, how come that can't impact on Sevco now? I'm trying hard to be one of those mythical, neutral BRALTers, but I suspect that previous form might get in the way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 It really isn't any sort of story, let alone THE story here. I don't know of anyone who's contributed to Doleman's expedition. It's not remotely relevant to me or the vast bulk of those interested in the outcome of proceedings.Genuine question, because I've no real personal grasp of such matters at all: How come, there's no implication? I understand why it's potentially catastrophic for those in the dock. If Sevco was created by the fraudulent purchase of assets though, how come that can't impact on Sevco now?I'm trying hard to be one of those mythical, neutral BRALTers, but I suspect that previous form might get in the way.ooooh this'll be good. Bet you get lots of deflection and whataboutery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I'd be careful Kinky, you know what your fellow bears are like, they'll be hailing you as some sort of law expert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 There was a great thread on here when he asked for some help or support for something and among those piping up onside was a Falkirk fan. Another Falkirk fan then came on with evidence of Muirhead accusing Falkirk fans of sectarianism. The first Falkirk fan then told Muirhead to shove it. Honestly, it was much funnier than I'm making it sound with this sketchy account. ETA: At least I think it was Muirhead - I should probably have checked. I wouldn't bother - nobody else seems to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Genuine question, because I've no real personal grasp of such matters at all: How come, there's no implication? I understand why it's potentially catastrophic for those in the dock. If Sevco was created by the fraudulent purchase of assets though, how come that can't impact on Sevco now? Not surprisingly you're beguiled by the utter scum from the east end whose aberrant behaviour you're so tolerant of. The point of this trial isn't about a fraudulent transaction but about fraudulent acquisition of funds. Id est, the difference between buying a stolen car and using stolen money to buy a car. That subtlety is what is taxing the brains of the pathetic morons in grey and green. It really isn't any sort of story, let alone THE story here. It is, of course. The fraud case has no football implications. Tweetgate? You really can't see how disturbing that is? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Yep. The Rangers fans in Aberdeen must be really fucking thick. You ever lived there, ben? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not surprisingly you're beguiled by the utter scum from the east end whose aberrant behaviour you're so tolerant of. The point of this trial isn't about a fraudulent transaction but about fraudulent acquisition of funds. Id est, the difference between buying a stolen car and using stolen money to buy a car. That subtlety is what is taxing the brains of the pathetic morons in grey and green. It is, of course. The fraud case has no football implications. Tweetgate? You really can't see how disturbing that is? Live court reporting isn't new - http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133638. Is your concern about tweeting from court in general or is it about who's doing it? The fact that he's being paid doesn't strike me as being much different from it being a DR man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not surprisingly you're beguiled by the utter scum from the east end whose aberrant behaviour you're so tolerant of. The point of this trial isn't about a fraudulent transaction but about fraudulent acquisition of funds. Id est, the difference between buying a stolen car and using stolen money to buy a car. That subtlety is what is taxing the brains of the pathetic morons in grey and green. Leaving aside the staggering degree of prejudice you're now displaying to people you wish to lump together, I had not appreciated that the trial concerns only how Green and co came up with the £5.5m. Is that what you're saying? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not surprisingly you're beguiled by the utter scum from the east end whose aberrant behaviour you're so tolerant of. The point of this trial isn't about a fraudulent transaction but about fraudulent acquisition of funds. Id est, the difference between buying a stolen car and using stolen money to buy a car. That subtlety is what is taxing the brains of the pathetic morons in grey and green. It is, of course. The fraud case has no football implications. Tweetgate? You really can't see how disturbing that is? If you like, you could wait for the remaining 26 pages of the indictment which the redoubtable Doleman is transcribing for us, before passing ignorant comment on what something is or is not about. Live court reporting isn't new - http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133638. Is your concern about tweeting from court in general or is it about who's doing it? The fact that he's being paid doesn't strike me as being much different from it being a DR man. Rumour has it that he may be a left-footer. Because this sort of discrimination is fine, isn't it you lovable old rogue Kinky? Leaving aside the staggering degree of prejudice you're now displaying to people you wish to lump together, I had not appreciated that the trial concerns only how Green and co came up with the £5.5m. Is that what you're saying? The chaps from Duff & Phelps aren't on trial for that are they? (no, no they're not) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Leaving aside the staggering degree of prejudice you're now displaying to people you wish to lump together, I had not appreciated that the trial concerns only how Green and co came up with the £5.5m. Is that what you're saying? That's the bit that has me confused also, especially considering this summary of the charges . . . ... 1. CW, GW, DG, DW, PC conspired to obtain funds by fraud from Jerome, Merchant and Ticketus to fund the fraudulent purchase of the club (offence was aggravated) CW & GW obtained £2,825,000 by fraud from the trustees of the Jerome Pension Fund CW & GW obtained £1,000,00 by fraud from Merchant Turnaround PLC CW, GW & DG made false representations to Rangers Independent committee about the funding of the purchase CW & GW obtained £24,337,094 by fraud from Ticketus CW & GW made false representations to the Takeover panel re the funding CW failed to disclose a disqualification as a director CW & GW made false representation to the PLUS stock exchange re CW’s disqualification CW, GW & DG made false representations to Murray Holdings Ltd re funding of the purchase and the future funding of the club including the wee tax case (£2,800,000) and an H&S liability (£1,700,000) 2. CW & GW contravened the proceeds of crime act using the £28,262,094 obtained by fraud when purchasing the club 3. DG, DW & PC failed to report suspicions of Money Laundering by CW & GW using “Financial Assistance” to purchase the club, contrary to the proceeds of crime act 4. CW, GW, DG, DW, PC did conspire together to act as in Charge 1 5. CW & GW breached the Companies Act by using the clubs own money to fund the acquisition (Financial Assistance” 6. CW & GW committed fraud by failing to disclose CW’s disqualification to the SFA 7. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £253,800 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital. 8. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £409,320 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital. 9. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £66,120 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital. 10. CW, GW, DG, DW & PC conspired to defraud creditors, including non-payment of taxes and while they ran the club in order to facilitate CW in buying back the club debt free, which was in breach of the Companies Act 11. DW & PC perverted the course of justice when stating to Lord Hodge that they were unaware of the Ticketus arrangements 12. CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA conspired to defraud creditors by purchasing the club’s business and assets significantly below market value. CW, DW & PC sought to put the club in administration• Caused the court to appoint DW & PC as administrators DW & PC falsely pretended to act in the interests of all creditors CG falsely presented himself as an independent purchaser DW & PC pretended that the purpose of administration was to get the best return for creditors CW acquired Sevco 5088 of which CG was appointed director• CG received £25,000 from CW to pay legal fees related to Sevco 5088 CG paid the legal fees with the £25,000 IA paid the administrators DW & PC £200,000 as an exclusivity fee DW & PC granted Sevco 5088 exclusivity to the exclusion of other prospective purchasers CW paid £137,000 into IA’s mother’s account as part payment of the exclusivity fee DW & PC completed a sale and purchase agreement with CG on behalf of both Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland for a price of £5,500,000, significantly below market value. DW & PC falsely advised creditors that SPL prize money was reflected in the consideration paid for the assets, but the sale and purchase agreement reflected a “nil” consideration CG permitted the transfer of £291,823.10 from Rangers Youth Development to help fund the purchase of assets 13. CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA participated in a conspiracy to purchase the business and assets of the club depriving creditors of the rightful sums due to them and the material benefit going to themselves 14. CW and IA defrauded investors in Sevco 5088 and RIFC, acquiring money and shares by fraud and to increase the value of their shares in RIFC CW pretended he had no interest in Sevco 5088• Induced investors to put £5,500,000 into Sevco 5088 CG caused the change of exclusivity from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland without proper approval CG did appropriate the £5,500,000 invested in Sevco 5088 by fraud without the investors knowledge or agreement CG & IA allotted themselves 2,000,000 shares CG & IA changed the name of Sevco Scotland to The Rangers Football Club CG & IA appointed Cenkos as a nomad but failed to advise them of the source of funding through Sevco 5088 CG & IA thereby raised £21,000,000 in the IPO by fraud 15. CW failed to provide police with mobile phone and laptop passwords, when requested, in breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act by police contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. ... I'm really new to this party, seeing as I'm from the States. So yes, while I saw a Hearts match first while on holiday and so that's "my club" now, it's not nearly as engrained in me as it might be for a lot of other supporters who've been going to see their club all their lives. So I guess my question is, are the Rangers fans actually this confident that there's "nothing to see here," or are they just taking the piss? Because as a lawyer, even one versed in American, not Scots, law, this looks like a hell of a lot more than just "buying a car with stolen money." Edited January 5, 2016 by Justin Z 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.