Charles Green Statement

[der Berliner 3,744]

Don't get me wrong here, but some folk should really slow down a bit. We all are wary here, but some shouldn't go after every statement that is being said like grand inquisitors who have all the truths at the ready.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

if green lies in a statement people will go after it.

 

he always does.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Don't get me wrong here, but some folk should really slow down a bit. We all are wary here, but some shouldn't go after every statement that is being said like grand inquisitors who have all the truths at the ready.

 

Yes, procrastination and prevarication served us so well not so long ago.

[barca72 440]

In law for a contract - whether written or oral - to be legally binding one side must offer something of value and the other side must offer a fair consideration. As an example, Murray offered 85% of Rangers shares to Whyte and received a pound sterling in return - ergo a legal, binding contract. I have been unable to find anywhere a legal written contract that binds Whyte and Green to Sevco 5088.

When you look at the postings at Company House it says that - ' Sevco 5088 Limited is a Pending business incorporated in England & Wales on 29th March 2012. Their business activity has not been recorded. Sevco 5088 Limited is run by 1 current members. It has no share capital. It is not part of a group.' ... The one current member is Green.

There are also documents listed, and there are two of particular interest -

AP01 - Appointment of director 05-05-2012 ... This is Green.

RES11 - Disapplication of pre-emption rights. 15-06-2012 ( This is the day after Duff & Phelps sold Rangers to Sevco Scotland according to their interim report ). What are 'pre-emption rights'? ... ' The rights of a shareholder to have the first refusal on any new shares in the company as they become available. In the UK these rights are enshrined in company law.' Why is this important? Well, before a board can disapply pre-emption rights it has to explain its reasons to any and all shareholders. There were no shares, but if Whyte claims that he had shares then he has lost his right of first refusal to any new shares. Since Green is the only person involved in Sevco 5088 he has free reign on doing as he pleases. If, as some claim, Duff & Phelps sold Rangers to Sevco 5088 then Green as the only controlling force could quite easily transfer Rangers to Sevco Scotland. Even if Duff & Phelps were lying about who they sold Rangers to, Green still ends up in the driver's seat.

Now we come to the AP01s that Whyte has produced. Remember we don't have a written contract that says Green would appoint Whyte as a director. We only have Whyte's claim of an oral contract. We don't know exactly what the offer of value is and we don't know what exactly was the fair consideration. A judge would have to decide that one. We can say this though :-

i) Legal Fact - Whyte has been barred as a director.

ii) Legal Fact - Whyte has been called by a Sheriff 'a wholly unreliable witness' in the case with the roofing company.

iii) Legal Fact - Whyte has been found to have lied in the Ticketus case.

iv) I don't know if anything associated with the SFA is legal, but they have banned him from ever holding any position with any club in Scottish football.

On the other hand Green has never been convicted of any Legal Wrongdoing. So if you were the judge who would you believe? On the other hand we have witnessed Green tell a few porkies in an attempt to cover his ass, and he has shown a decided lack of class when you compare him to the likes of Bill Struth etc. However, he did save our club, he did stand up to the bullies, and he did put us on a sound financial footing. We get to see our team play Clyde tomorrow because of him. I would say that as a support we may be inclined to offer him a period of grace to get his house in order. I would hope that with his drive and our passion we can raise our club back to the pinnacle of excellence.

[ian1964 10,724]

CHARLES Green will be grilled by the Rangers board today and told to reveal his true relationship with disgraced ex-owner Craig Whyte.

 

The chief executive is facing D-Day at an emergency meeting called by chairman Malcom Murray amid turmoil at Ibrox over links between the two men.

 

Green will be facing questions alongside his boardroom allies Imran Ahmad and Brian Stockbridge. With a power struggle raging at the club, Rangers sources say it is feasible that the rest of the board could decide to terminate the trio’s contract.

 

An alternative could be to suspend one, two or all three pending an internal investigation into Green’s connections with Whyte and the racism row the chief executive is embroiled in.

 

We understand Murray was holding off on calling the summit until non-executive director Ian Hart returned from holiday in the US.

 

Hart will be joined by fellow non-executive directors Walter Smith, motors tycoon Bryan Smart and Phillip Cartmell, the former boss of a security firm.

 

They will demand answers from Green before today’s match against Clyde.

 

Murray has been working behind the scenes to co-ordinate a strategy following Whyte’s allegations that Green was working for him.

 

Green had always denied a connection to the former owner.

 

We understand there have been at least two conference calls between Murray and his non-executive directors in the build-up to today’s showdown.

 

Their concern at Green’s behaviour was heightened at the start of the week when he admitted using the word “P**i” when addressing his right-hand man Imran Ahmad.

 

Green has denied being in partnership with Whyte, claiming he had to deal with him in order to gain control of his shares ahead of a potential CVA when the club went into administration. He admitted “shafting” Whyte when he no longer needed his shares following the liquidation of the Ibrox oldco.

 

That admission has prompted an SFA investigation into his Rangers takeover and they have also charged the Yorkshireman with bringing the game into disrepute for his comments about Ahmad.

 

If any proof is found to back Whyte’s claim that he was involved in the Rangers takeover, it could have severe consequences for the club.

 

Whyte was banned by the SFA from having any involvement in the running of a football club, following the carnage he wreaked during his chaotic spell at Ibrox.

 

But before the SFA hearing, the Gers board are demanding clarity from Green, Ahmad and the club’s finance chief Stockbridge.

 

It is understood there is a determination from the chairman and majority of

non-executive directors to take firm action.

 

A source close to the crisis said: “Some would say this is D-Day for Green, Ahmad and Stockbridge but without wishing to be too dramatic, it is closer to the truth to say it is D-Day for Rangers.

 

“Everything is at stake. Unless they see appropriate action taken, it will a leave a number of the non-execs, Walter Smith included, with no choice but to resign.

 

“A through and forensic investigation of what has gone on inside Ibrox needs to be carried out for the good of the club. If the people involved have nothing to hide, then they should have nothing to fear.”

 

The move comes as the Rangers Supporters’ Trust called for Green’s future to be decided – and for the Green and Ahmad to pursue legal action against Whyte.

 

The fans’ group want Whyte dragged into court to force him to provide evidence backing up his accusations about Green.

 

The Trust statement said: “Our club needs clarity over two major issues – the future of Charles Green and the ongoing claims of Craig Whyte.

 

“The proper places for these two to be handled are, respectively, the Ibrox boardroom and a court of law.”

 

It added that the board have the authority to deal with Green’s “recent performance without interference from the media or external bodies”.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-board-grill-chief-executive-1828656

[ian1964 10,724]

http://www.cdrex.com/sevco-5088-limited-8239675.html

[UCF2008 0]

http://www.cdrex.com/sevco-5088-limited-8239675.html

 

That says Whyte and Earley have been directors of Sevco 5088 since 11am yesterday

[ian1964 10,724]

That says Whyte and Earley have been directors of Sevco 5088 since 11am yesterday

 

Why would they do that?

[der Berliner 3,744]

That says Whyte and Earley have been directors of Sevco 5088 since 11am yesterday

 

Probably makes only sense for a crook, I assume.

[der Berliner 3,744]

Why would they do that?

 

Snatched from FF:

If below is correct in bold , then Whyte would have to have been registered within 14 days electronically and by post.

 

+++

 

You can change your registered office address by sending a completed Form 287 to Companies House. The change only becomes legally effective when we have registered the form. A person may validly serve any document on the company at the previously registered address for 14 days after the registration of the form.

 

5. Change of directors and secretary and their details - Forms 288a, 288b or 288c

You must notify any change of a company’s directors or secretaries to Companies House.

 

Form 288(a) is used for the appointment of an officer;

Form 288(b) is for the termination of an officer’s appointment (resignation, removal, death etc); and

Form 288© is used for a change in details of an officer, for example, a change of name or new residential address.

You must submit all changes to directors' and secretaries details within 14 days of the change. You can notify Companies House of any of the above changes online via WebFiling or by using a suitable Software Filing package.

Proof is the Registrar’s PROOF (PROtected On-line Filing) Scheme. It provides additional security relating to the delivery of directors details and registered office address for documents delivered electronically:

 

Company directors hold an important position in a company. They have power to make purchases and enter into credit arrangements on behalf of the company. Similarly, the registered office address is important because it is the address to which all official communications will be sent.

 

Records held at Companies House are sometimes used to check the legitimacy of a company and its directors before credit or loans are made. Therefore it is important that the records are correct. Companies are vulnerable to fraud if the wrong people get themselves on record as company directors or a bogus registered office address is filed.

 

In order to combat fraudsters posing as legitimate directors, Companies House offers companies a free, fully electronic and secure system for notifying changes of directors and changes to the registered office address. If you opt to only notify these electronically, they will be protected by electronic codes and we will not accept notices from your company delivered in any other format.

 

You will need to complete an 'Opt-in' form (PR1) and agree to the terms and conditions so that any change of directors or change of registered office address are only accepted by Companies House if they are delivered by the secure electronic method and never on a paper form. The 'Opt-in'; form and terms and conditions are available from our web site or by calling 0303 123 4500. The completed form must be posted back to Companies House. This service is voluntary; you may opt-out at any time and Companies House will revert to accepting notices from your company delivered electronically or on paper forms.

 

From mid 2009 it is planned this paper based process will be replaced by an electronic system, so that once you have agreed to the terms and conditions of the scheme you can sign up or opt out electronically of Proof within the appropriate web pages of the WebFiling service.

 

At best these documents are bogus, at worst they are irrelevant.

 

Whyte may have a share certificate signed for whatever reason , bottom line is its shares in feck all .

 

Sevco5088 did not buy Rangers so this is purely academic. It does show that Whyte brought Green to the table and how he got preferred buyer status but when the CVA was refused Green no longer needed Whyte's shares and dropped him. If the CVA had gone through there would be massive issues but as it didn't Whyte's involvement ceased and the assurances given to the SFA at a later date are valid.

 

It does not make Green look any better, but he's not here to "look good". You would hope the directors' meeting sort him out somewhat though.