barca72

Well I would think that a site as well-thought of as TRS would want everybody who reads their blogs to believe them. Otherwise why would they strive for the respect they have earned? We expect any other paragon of virtue in the media to produce proof of content if they want their readership to believe them, so why not TRS? I don't think that is being arrogant. I don't know that they haven't proved it to a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, because they have not said they have proved it to someone else. However, if they want us to believe it then they need to prove it to us, otherwise they should not be printing what can only be described as unsubstantiated rumours. Your last two paragraphs prove to me the point that I have been trying to make. That is that in our own minds as fans we are very suspicious of where the next kick is coming from. We are at such a heightened state of anxiety that we will almost believe anything that is published, whether there is proof or not, In this case we tell ouselves that TRS would not knowingly lie to us because of their past history and because of the respect they have earned. However, this story has such high stakes that I believe it should not be released to the public domain without clear and obvious proof. The fans deserve that at least.

If your strong information is enough for you to believe the story, then why don't you show it to us and we can make up our own minds, or should we blindly believe you?

You are the one making assumptions, you tell me.

I have no doubt that that is how you feel. Can you prove that they have the proof they claim to have? Up until today I had no reason to doubt TRS either, and what they claim may turn out to be true. However, as much as I like their standards in the past, I don't think they should be different that anyone else when it comes to substantiating their claims. Let me ask you another question. If this information had been published under another byline, for the sake of discussion Keith Jackson or Graham Spiers, would you be as vociferous in their defence without them giving a verifiable source?

Who do you mean by him? Why must there be a connection to Whyte. We have no proof of who this person is. This is proving my point, look at the assumptions people are making because they are assuming it to be true and wish to be offended by it.

They give us nothing to substantiate their story. If I tell you that jumping off the Cliffs of Dover is good for you, simply because swimming is good for you, would you believe me? If they want me to believe what they have published is true then give me proof. What are they afraid of? After SDM and Whyte, we as fans can handle the truth. On any other story that a poster posts on this forum the first thing other posters ask for is a link to substantiate the veracity of the post. Just because it's TRS don't you think they should be held to the same standard? I am not saying that I know this person is not Ahmad, but I would like them to prove it is Ahmad before I get any more anxious about what is happening internally at the club.

I agree with you that the fans deserve to know the truth, but that's the point, the truth and not allegations. We are fed all kinds of guff from all kinds of sources every day. As I said I am disappointed in TRS. I look upon that site as a cut above the rest simply because of its standards. I do not like to see them publish unsubstantiated rumours. There has been enough carnage done to our club using such tactics. If anyone is guilty of such acts as are alleged then they should be dealt with harshly. Please let us not pre-judge, before proof is presented. I am not trying to be naive or obtuse, but enough already.

I just received this email from 'The Daily Ranger' blog. I don't know if you think it has any relevance to our discussion ... http://thedailyranger.wordpress.com/ Unfortunately, when I try to copy the blog it doesn'show the tweets, so maybe it will be best if you click on it yourself.

I would say that you have missed the point of my original post. I said that IA was not the point, but rather the efficacy of reporting unsubstantiated allegations is suspect. I said that it causes the fans concern and anxiety. Look at your own reply. You "guess" that TRS has a verifiable source. You exhort me to "blame" IA for the situation. You demand that owners and directors be "above reproach". Is your post above reproach? My point is that people can have their stress levels raised because of such allegations. An action done in the heat of the moment is less likely to be a considered opinion than one taken calmly and with a cool mindset. I imagine you would agree that in the last year or so there has been enough 'guilty until proven innocent' situations at our club. What happened to our club when allegations surrounded it about the big tax case? And there are other instances. Our board has taken the heat out of the allegations surrounding Green for the moment by instigating an internal investigation. If TRS have allegations against IA then they should report them to the club and let them deal with the situation then report upon the results. This is the same for any unsubstantiated allegations. Trial by the MSM is neither calming nor satisfactory to the fans. If we want a return to sanity then we as fans must play our part. We should remain vigilant and fair.

I agree that these are just allegations. Whether Imran Ahmad should resign or be fired is not the point. I am surprised that a blog like TRS would publish this story without a verifiable source. This kind of behaviour is better left to the Sun or the rhebel, whom everybody now takes with a pinch of salt. This kind of story can do nothing other than raise the level of concern and anxiety of the fans. I am disappointed in TRS and I think they should have communicated their suspicions directly to the club and let them release the details once they have been confirmed.

I have said before that everything we are being bombarded with centres around the premise that Whyte has a stake in Sevco 5088. I don't know about you but I am getting the impression that Whyte feels that Sevco 5088 bought Rangers from Duff & Phelps and Green somehow defrauded him of these assets by transferring them to Sevco Scotland. Whyte has to prove that he would be the person that would have benefitted the most from Sevco 5088 still having the Rangers assets to gain restitution. We have seen Whyte engage Worthington's to bankroll his case against Green and Ahmad. How does Whyte prove that Green defrauded or deceived him? You would think that if Whyte had a written contract between the parties then he would have produced it by now and the decision could be made. So does that mean he is attempting to tell us that he had an oral contract between them? I wondered about that, so I looked up some passages in an old law book. viz:- The nature of a contract - All contracts begin with a promise, but not all promises become contracts. Although there may be a moral obligation to keep all promises seriously made, it does not follow that there will be any legal obligation. Contract law is concerned with legally binding promises. In the words of a great English lawyer - " The most popular description of a contract that can be given is also the most exact one, namely that it is a promise or set of promises which the law will enforce ". So if Whyte believes that he has a contract in place the judge will primarily be concerned with two things. First, a description of the promise or promises that may form a contract, and second, an investigation of the resources available in the law to enforce them. A contract cannot come into existence until an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the another party. The nature of an offer - An offer is a tentative promise made by one party, the offeror, subject to a condition or containing a request to the other party, the offeree. When the offeree accepts the offer by agreeing to the condition or request, the offer is superseded by a contract; the promise is no longer tentative. The offeror is bound to carry out his promise while the offeree is bound to carry out the condition or request. A mere invitation to do business is not an offer to make a contract. At the root of our idea of a contract is the concept of a bargain, that one party must pay a price, that is make some contribution, for the promise he obtains from the other party. This price is called consideration. Consideration is essential to make a contract binding in law. A promise made in the absence of a bargain is called a gratuitous promise and, although accepted by the person to whom it is made, does not constitute a contract and is not enforceable in law. So how does that lot help us? Well we can't know exactly what was agreed between these two, but we can make some assumptions. We heard Whyte's tapes and apart from having nuisance value I never heard anything that sounded like an oral contract. There was the point of Early paying the law firm 25K pounds to set up Sevco 5088. We could perhaps assume that Whyte and Early had set this up with the view of making Green the sole shareholder and director and then Green appointing them as directors so that they could make a decision on buying The Rangers Football Group from Duff & Phelps, but why wait eleven months to submit the AP01s supposedly signed by Green? Then there is the 137.5K pounds sitting in Ahmad's mom's account. Did Whyte agree to pay one quarter of the ten % down payment of the 5.5M pound payment to Duff & Phelps, it's never been touched so does that mean Green can claim there was no consideration given for a promise made? The scenarios are almost unlimited. Another thing I was thinking about was that if Whyte, when it became apparent that HMRC were forcing liquidation on him, and Green was transferring the club and assets from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland, why didn't he use estoppel? Promissory estoppel - The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise. English civil law is based on 'the actions of the reasonable man'. I can't see anything reasonable about Whyte's actions or decisions. A Parcel of Rogues, the lot of them.

Yes. With Rangers stating quite forcefully, definitively and non-speculatively that - " Sevco 5088 is not an active subsidiary of the Rangers International Football Club plc. " and - " Sevco 5088 was not the acquisition vehicle which purchased the assets of Rangers Football Club. " and also, with Charles Green voluntarily resigning from his position as CEO, there is no longer any link between Sevco 5088 and RIFC. If that strange little man , Whyte, wishes to raise any legal action it can only concern Charles Green the individual. The keys to Inbrox and Auchenhowie are safe. Maybe someone should change the locks just to be sure.

I guess that would prevent the return of Bocanegra and Goian. Maybe Alexander, too.

Sounds to me that even Liewell accepts there will be no change until the 2014/2015 season, which could possibly see us , in a 14-14-14 set up, in the top division by then. What happened to the dire warnings that it was take it or leave it for this season only? http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/sfl/sfl-take-centre-stage-in-change-move-122104n.20890109 Tuesday 23 April 2013 SFL take centre stage in change move. THE SFL are set to take the lead in the league reconstruction debate after agreeing to form a working group to engage with the SPL and find a 42-club solution to rescue the Scottish game, writes Chris Jack. David Longmuir was at the meeting. Controversial plans that would have had a 12-12-18 three-tier structure come into place next season were rejected by the SPL last week after St Mirren and Ross County voted against the proposal in the wake of an outcry from fans. SportTimes understands the SFL have produced a new strategy document that will now be looked over by its members, with representatives from some First Division clubs forming a working party to attempt to force through change for the start of the 2013-14 campaign. SFL chief executive David Longmuir joined the 10 First Division clubs, including new champions Partick Thistle and already relegated Airdrie United, plus Dundee and Second Division champions Queen of the South, at a meeting at New Douglas Park last night. They convened just a few hours after Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell warned that to have any chance of being implemented for next season, new proposals would have to be brought forward immediately. He said: "If we don't get something coming forward, say this week, then that's it. We need to move on and play in the same structure. "I'm unsure whether there are any further proposals that will come forward between now and the summer. "If there are, they need to be dealt with quickly. But, if not, then we go into next season with the status quo, and I'm sure there will be a bit more work done over the next year." The First Division clubs are determined to lead the way to help find that solution. Following the meeting, a statement read: "The clubs still feel there is a willingness for change and a window of opportunity still exists to agree on a way forward, and what can be accepted for the benefit of all 42 clubs. "A small working group will seek to discuss with the relevant bodies how we can best progress the way forward as soon as possible."

We have seen how the teams in the SPL have been affected by the lack of the Rangers pound this year. Here is a list of the Gala sponsors lifted from RM. I wonder if they would like to contemplate doing business without the blue pound - Look at the sponsors of the gala and email,write, facebook them to let them know what has happened! Here is a List of some of the sponsors of the gala day 2013 Gibson Street Gala Sponsors Thanks to the following: Alice Rocks Hairdressing Many thanks to John Comerford at Alice Rocks on Gibson Street for his contribution. Artisan Roast Many thanks to Artisan Roast for their contribution. Cairn Letting Many thanks to Cairn Letting on Gibson Street for their generous contribution. Copy & Print Many thanks to Copy & Printfor their generous support. Gear Bikes Huge thanks to Gear Bikes on Gibson Street for sponsoring the gala! Global Cuisines Many thanks to Global Cuisines on Gibson Street for their support. Inn Deep Thanks to Inn Deep for their contribution. the left bank A few emails and face books to sponsors may do the trick!

Can you expand a little bit on this, please?

For a start this part - " They had received two phone calls and two emails. I asked for the worst of it. One email had said ” The Gibson Street event is a folk and community festival and it shouldn’t be aligning itself with a bigoted organisation” - is entirely libelous and should be passed along to Jim Traynor for follow up. I would think that if you are upset enough about this you could find out who gives this organizer his permit to run the festival, perhaps Glasgow City Council, and inform them of his selection practices. He could be guilty of sectarian practices. If that doesn't get you any satisfaction complain to your MP or ombudsman. This sounds entirely wrong and it is not the purpose of a street festival, it should be inclusive. If anybody has a problem with what you are offering they have the choice of moving on. You should not be banned from appearing as a vendor, especially one who's profits are going to charities. You are right, how petty and bigoted can these people get.

I don't know who to believe anymore. I mean when you have two companies, Law Financial Ltd and RIFC laying claim to the same company, Sevco 5088, as a subsidiary you end up going around in circles trying to make sense of it. I don't know about you but I'm at the stage where I feel we won't really know anything until the whole mess is dealt with in court. The worst nightmare is that Whyte could win and end up owning Ibrox and Auchenhowie. It does not matter how you look at the situation, the whole thing seems to centre around the ownership of Sevco 5088. However, the one thought that makes everything else go away is the Police Scotland criminal investigation into Whyte. If the Ticketus decision stands then everything Whyte did from that point forward is criminal. He created a contract with SDM in which he produced funds to pay off the bank and as a result was able to conclude the contract for the shares for one pound. So, if it is deemed that the funds were gained illegally then all causal links from that point forward will be quashed. I much prefer to think of Whyte gaining free room and board in the Bar-L than gaining the keys to Ibrox and Auchenhowie. I can live with these assumptions until the truth is known.

Okay FS I think that apart from arguing a few points of semantics we are pretty much agreed on the status of Whyte and his activities. For me the point of the whole thing was the original OP press article and the gross exagerations and foolish links it throws out there. By the reaction of fellow bears this seems to cause discomfort and to some a bit of stress. I think where we can we should debunk this nonsense, and bring down the level of anxiety. The last point I would like to clear up that may be hanging there is this "However, we have to keep in mind the SFA's ruling that Whyte cannot have any connection to any team in Scottish football so I don't know how that would play." I know that since we are a publicly floated company Whyte could if he wanted, just go and buy shares. Even at that I don't think he would cause us problems as a shareholder. What prompted that comment was my interpretation of this Article of the SFA. It gives you a sore head reading it, but we know from experience how Regan and crew have strange interpretations of rules when handing out sanctions. Remember now that the SFA have ruled Whyte as an undesireable person ( or words to that effect ). viz: http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53- 136_Articles_of_Association.pdf ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION 13.4 The Scottish FA is authorised to request full disclosure of the identity of all of the shareholders of a member and details of all beneficial interests represented by any such shareholder and all members and other relevant persons under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA will be required to meet all such requests without delay. Failure to do so will constitute a breach of these Articles and the Judicial Panel will have jurisdiction to deal with any such breach and to impose sanctions in relation to it. 13.5 For the purposes of this Article 13: (a) “club” means any club in membership of the Scottish FA and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or FIFA; (b) “person” includes any body corporate and a partnership; © “associate” means:- (i) if the person referred to is an individual, (1) a close relative of that individual, including that individual’s spouse, common law spouse, civil partner, parent, step parent, child, stepchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, or a child or stepchild of such parent or spouse, common law spouse or civil partner or anyone else of a close relationship to that individual who in the opinion of the Board is or is likely to be acting in conjunction with that individual; (2) any company of which that individual or a close relative of such individual is a director or over which that individual or a close relative of such individual is able to exercise control or influence; and (3) any individual who is an employee or partner of that individual or a close relative of any such employee or partner; and (ii) if the person referred to or any associate of that person is a body corporate, (1) any other body corporate associated with it either through the holding of shares in it or by reason of control by contract or other form of agreement; (2) any director or employee of that body corporate or other associated body corporate or any close relative of any such director or employee; and (3) where any person has an agreement or arrangement, whether legally binding or not, with any other person in relation to the exercise of his voting power in a club or in relation to the holding or disposal of his interest in such club, that other person; and (d) “member” means involvement directly or indirectly (and whether as principal, trustee, nominee, beneficiary or in any other capacity) in a club as a shareholder, holder of options over any share, holder of convertible loans or securities or any like instrument; member of a company limited by guarantee; the holder of an interest in any unincorporated voluntary association; or as possessor of any other right of ownership or control in relation to a club. 13.6 In considering whether to give any such consent as may be required by this Article 13, the Board shall have regard to the need to promote and safeguard the interests and public profile of Association Football, its players, spectators and others concerned with the game and shall have regard also to these Articles, the rules and regulations of the Scottish FA and to the constitution and rules of those bodies of which the Scottish FA is in membership and, accordingly, any such consent shall be subject to such conditions as the Board shall consider appropriate in all the circumstances. I don't know if you'll come up with anything concrete but good luck. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

You're speaking of two different things here. If, as you say, the 3M pounds was loaned to Whyte as part of his proof of funds, then when I say he tried to make restitution of these funds I mean that when he obtained control of Rangers Plc he tried to use the money belonging to Rangers Plc, or now renamed to The Rangers Football Group. Duff & Phelps when they took over the administration of the club discovered this repayment of the 3M pounds and ringfenced it legally. All that has nothing to do with any legal action Whyte may take with regard to Sevco 5088. I never stated that Whyte would take any legal action as regards restitution of the loan.

Let's back up a little. The original opinion was that Whyte/Worthington were going to come after RIFC and this would be a disaster for us. I am trying to show that Whyte can NOT come after RIFC. UCF2008, before Worthington can take up the case for Sevco 5088, Whyte has to prove he owns it. Forlanssister I am not, in my opinion, ruling out the fact that Whyte's claims have no validity. I am, however, saying that Whyte will have to prove that he does indeed own Sevco 5088 for it to be a subsidiary of Law Financial Ltd. I think he will have great difficulty in proving such a claim. We can go into legal arguments if you wish. The upshot is, that after proving Sevco 5088 is indeed his subsidiary, what would be his claim against RIFC? He could attempt to prove that Charles Green/Imran Ahmad had somehow through deception defrauded him out of the assets sold to them by Duff & Phelps ( to Sevco 5088 then transferred to Sevco Scotland - and that would be another court case to prove that ). His only settlement if successful would be a monetary compensation from Green /Ahmad. If they choose to settle this compensation debt by assigning their shares in RIFC to Whyte, then he could possibly gain a shareholding in RIFC. However, we have to keep in mind the SFA's ruling that Whyte cannot have any connection to any team in Scottish football so I don't know how that would play. Even before any case about Sevco 5088 reaches a court, we may find that the investigation by Police Scotland may be completed and Whyte may face criminal charges over the Ticketus-bankrolled buy out of Rangers Plc. It is my understanding, and I may stand to be corrected here, that any director of a company which has been liquidated or dissolved would be barred from owning another company for a period of time. If you look at the legal thinking which Whyte put up in his defence in the recent Ticketus case, and which the judge discarded point by point through quoting previous case law, you begin to see how deluded this man is. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the Worthington chairman is only interested in buying LFL to obtain the media rights to Whyte's supposed book and movies. 250K seems reasonable to perhaps gain a few extra million.

The Jerome Company is a subsidiary of Worthingtons. I don't know the specifics of the loan they speak of, but it sounds like Whyte tried to make restitution of the loan when he took over Rangers Plc 2012 and Duff&Phelps blocked it. Irrespective this has nothing to do with RIFC as any debts belonging to The Rangers Football Group ( Whyte's holding Co ) are wiped out by liquidation. That means there is no tie in to Sevco 5088 or RIFC.

This only shows a connection between Whyte and Worthington, someone to bankroll Whyte's legal expenses. But I repeat ... Where in the above statement, copied from your link, does it say that Worthington will sue RIFC? It says Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of LFL, and included in the assets of Sevco 5088 is a claim to assets of RFC 2012 PLC, etc. Because LFL claim that Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of theirs does not make it so, they would have to prove that. Charles Green created that company. If Whyte wants to prove that his newly created company owns Sevco 5088 as a subsidiary then he will have to engage Charles Green, not RIFC. Also, because Worthington's leading counsel says there is a prima facie case to answer does not make that so either. We seen that before when Rod McKenzie of Harper & McCleod said there was a prima facie case to answer in the side letter case. I tried to include your reply also, forlanssister but it didn't work. Both of you are making a case for a previous connection between Whyte and Worthington, but it still doesn't prove that either are going to engage RIFC in court proceedings. Whyte will have to prove a case for ownership of Sevco 5088 before there can be any causal link between him and RIFC's shares and assets.

"LFL, a recently incorporated company, has a number of subsidiaries, namely Sevco 5088 Ltd, Law Capital Ltd, Litigation Capital Ltd and Media Litigation Ltd (LFL and its subsidiaries hereafter being referred to as the Law Financial Group). The assets of Sevco 5088 Ltd include a claim, which has been independently reviewed by Leading Counsel who is also a Deputy High Court Judge, to all of the business and assets of RFC 2012 Plc which were purchased by Sevco 5088 Limited or Sevco Scotland Ltd from the administrators of RFC 2012 plc in June of 2012. Sevco Scotland Ltd was subsequently renamed The Rangers Football Club Limited and its share capital was acquired by Rangers International Football Club Plc, the shares of which are now traded on AIM. It is the position of Sevco 5088 Ltd that it is the rightful owner of the business and those assets. After examination of the evidence, Leading Counsel's advice is that there is a prima facie case to answer. " Where in the above statement, copied from your link, does it say that Worthington will sue RIFC? It says Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of LFL, and included in the assets of Sevco 5088 is a claim to assets of RFC 2012 PLC, etc. Because LFL claim that Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of theirs does not make it so, they would have to prove that. Charles Green created that company. If Whyte wants to prove that his newly created company owns Sevco 5088 as a subsidiary then he will have to engage Charles Green, not RIFC. Also, because Worthington's leading counsel says there is a prima facie case to answer does not make that so either. We seen that before when Rod McKenzie of Harper & McCleod said there was a prima facie case to answer in the side letter case.

How do you work that out?