Green loses bid to have legal costs paid by club - appeal set for 29th January

[boabie 230]

From what I've been reading it makes no odds which section of which act Green is depending on to pay his lawyer. If he is found guilty at the criminal trial all bets are off and he quite simply can whistle for any claim.

[Bluedell 5,627]

From what I've been reading it makes no odds which section of which act Green is depending on to pay his lawyer. If he is found guilty at the criminal trial all bets are off and he quite simply can whistle for any claim.

 

If the club lost, there would presumably be a requirement to pay the lawyers' fees during the trial and any subsequent appeal. If he was ultimately found guilty, the club may have a case to reclaim these fees from him, but it then depends on his assets and I wouldn't like to have to rely on getting cash out of him.

[buster. 5,208]

If the club lost, there would presumably be a requirement to pay the lawyers' fees during the trial and any subsequent appeal. If he was ultimately found guilty, the club may have a case to reclaim these fees from him, but it then depends on his assets and I wouldn't like to have to rely on getting cash out of him.

 

I think that someone earlier in the thread suggested MASH may possibly be contributing to pay Greens legal fees for this ongoing claim.

 

I don't know if this is true or not but it would fit with any MO that wanted to hamper cashflow at Rangers.

Both in the short-term and possibly medium-term if what you mention were to come to pass.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Interesting view. It seems to me that the section relates to dealing with third parties and not a director or employee, where there is a different relationship. It refers to a transaction which I don't believe applies (see below) Green is "is presumed to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is proved" and as he has not been found guilty of anything yet I doubt that it can be relied on.

 

Given that at least part of the indictments Green wants the company to pay for defending was prior to the company's existence was he at that point a third party? It is beyond question that Green like everyone else is entitled to the presumption of innocence and it is not beyond possibility we may see a scenario where the company is liable in the event of a not guilty or not proven verdict and not liable in the event of a guilty verdict. Other factors include the knowledge of the other Directors when the agreement was entered into and the contents of the Pinsent Masons report which I'm led to believe that contrary to what was claimed at the time was far from an absolution and not all Directors were privy to its' contents.

[RANGERRAB 3,681]

I think that someone earlier in the thread suggested MASH may possibly be contributing to pay Greens legal fees for this ongoing claim.

 

I don't know if this is true or not but it would fit with any MO that wanted to hamper cashflow at Rangers.

Both in the short-term and possibly medium-term if what you mention were to come to pass.

 

I doubt that.

Wouldn't MASH or MA be livid with Green if it transpires his Rangers acquisition gets deemed fraudulent ? What would happen to the SD contracts then ?

Why would they help him?

[forlanssister 3,114]

I doubt that.

Wouldn't MASH or MA be livid with Green if it transpires his Rangers acquisition gets deemed fraudulent ? What would happen to the SD contracts then ?

Why would they help him?

 

Think about it and you'll see you actually answered your own question.

[buster. 5,208]

I doubt that.

Wouldn't MASH or MA be livid with Green if it transpires his Rangers acquisition gets deemed fraudulent ? What would happen to the SD contracts then ?

Why would they help him?

 

I'm simply talking about current and future cashflow at Rangers and who may have an interest in hampering it through a dedicated strategy.

[barca72 440]

If the club lost, there would presumably be a requirement to pay the lawyers' fees during the trial and any subsequent appeal. If he was ultimately found guilty, the club may have a case to reclaim these fees from him, but it then depends on his assets and I wouldn't like to have to rely on getting cash out of him.

 

Rangers don't want to pay anything until the result of the fraud case, at least, is known ...

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/charles-greens-demand-rangers-pay-6821547

 

"Q.C. Wolffe called for Green's case to be dismissed or any decision to be postponed until the outcome of the criminal trial when the full facts of the case are known."