barca72 440 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 yes and green agreed to it and is on trial for fraud The 2 are unrelated, as far as I'm aware. Every transaction that Green entered as a director of the club does not fall away if he gets found guilty of fraud. We still own Edmiston House, Lee Wallace is still our player and we still have unfortunately agreed to pay the SFA the cash. If Green gets convicted of fraud then there will exist a causal link between any deals he made and his deliberate intention to breach his duty of care as a director. A case could be argued for his intention to keep his new company out of conflict with the SFA by agreeing to pay this money, while his long-term intention was to cash in on his company being able to issue a successful IPO, and have large ST sales before he exited the scene. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The only way this could be tested is by the club asking for a full Judicial Revue, on our fines and punishments, after our administration event from the result of fraud, by the parties currently under investigation and charges. Hands up who thinks the club is interested in this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 PS, my hand never went up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,472 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 If Green gets convicted of fraud then there will exist a causal link between any deals he made and his deliberate intention to breach his duty of care as a director.A case could be argued for his intention to keep his new company out of conflict with the SFA by agreeing to pay this money, while his long-term intention was to cash in on his company being able to issue a successful IPO, and have large ST sales before he exited the scene. That would never stand up. The 5 way agreement was a commercial agreement and if there wasn't anything fraudulent about it then it would have to stand. Why should third parties lose out if the agreement was done in good faith. Yes, we know we were blckmailed into it but that's a whole different argument, and has nothing to do with Green's fraud. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) The only way this could be tested is by the club asking for a full Judicial Revue, on our fines and punishments, after our administration event from the result of fraud, by the parties currently under investigation and charges. Hands up who thinks the club is interested in this? I don't know why the club would require a full Judicial review. This fine was levied by LNS as a result of his inquiry. He decided that the oldco were entitled to pay this. The SPFL, Rangers and Bluedell agree that the fine should be paid. The question in dispute is who should pay it. Green decided to accede to the SPFL's demands, and obviously the new board don't agree with that decision. Should they pay the money, and Green is subsequently convicted of fraud, my contention is that there is now a causal link between Green and the payment for the new board to seek restitution - from Green - of the money they will pay out. Why there would be a need for an FJR I can't see. Edited March 29, 2016 by barca72 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 That would never stand up. The 5 way agreement was a commercial agreement and if there wasn't anything fraudulent about it then it would have to stand. Why should third parties lose out if the agreement was done in good faith. Yes, we know we were blckmailed into it but that's a whole different argument, and has nothing to do with Green's fraud. This fine is entirely separate from the 'five-way-agreement'. That is an entirely different transgression, in my opinion, by Green. Although it was judged to be illegal, Green blinked and paid it. Again, in my opinion, he could not afford to have his newco denied a licence to play; or his payoff would never happen. To claim that that contract was signed under duress and to attempt to recover any monies, paid or lost, under that agreement is probably too late for the present board, due to time restraints associated with that Act. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 I don't know why the club would require a full Judicial review. This fine was levied by LNS as a result of his inquiry. He decided that the oldco were entitled to pay this.The SPFL, Rangers and Bluedell agree that the fine should be paid. The question in dispute is who should pay it. Green decided to accede to the SPFL's demands, and obviously the new board don't agree with that decision. Should they pay the money, and Green is subsequently convicted of fraud, my contention is that there is now a causal link between Green and the payment for the new board to seek restitution - from Green - of the money they will pay out. Why there would be a need for an FJR I can't see. The SFA and the SPL (SPFL) are not for returning our our fines or monies filched, the only way the club will get back anything is by court order, Judicial revue. My contention is that will never happen, as the club are just not interested in raking over old coals. I wish they would, but i just don't see any future court action on this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The SFA and the SPL (SPFL) are not for returning our our fines or monies filched, the only way the club will get back anything is by court order, Judicial revue. My contention is that will never happen, as the club are just not interested in raking over old coals. I wish they would, but i just don't see any future court action on this? I'm not advocating that they go after the SPL or The SPFL or the SFA, they are all skint. The only way I can see the club getting any money back is from Green, and then only if he convicted of fraud. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 I'm not advocating that they go after the SPL or The SPFL or the SFA, they are all skint. The only way I can see the club getting any money back is from Green, and then only if he convicted of fraud. Rangers are already going after Green for the money it cost to defend his action claiming we should pay for his defence in the criminal trial upcoming. I suspect Rangers and BDO to go after several people, companies and organisations if guity verdicts come down. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Rangers are already going after Green for the money it cost to defend his action claiming we should pay for his defence in the criminal trial upcoming. I suspect Rangers and BDO to go after several people, companies and organisations if guity verdicts come down. I really really really wish this to be true? 0 Quote Link to post 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.