Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[Stu101]

2 hours ago, SMcoolJ said:

Surely Coral aren't using their own in-house lawyer?    

They cant, unless he is a solicitor advocate.  Only advocates and solicitor advocates can appear in the Court of Session.  

Weirdly, the case isn't on the rolls so I cant check. But I expect Sandison is Craig Sandison QC- who is seemingly one if the best commercial QC's in the country (according to people much smarter than me)

[Stu101]

3 hours ago, Reevesy said:

Indeed. Any QC worth their salt would have had this thrown out in minutes.

"Sorry sir, Rangers were never relegated, they ceased to exist and a phoenix club using their name was fast tracked into D3, so your bet couldn't possibly have win"

The fact that its at proof suggests your understanding here is wrong. 

[Stu101]

2 hours ago, Parklife said:

Coral's lawyers seem completely inept.  

Go on yersel' Mr Kinloch! Hope he gets the £250k. 

As a man who has probably lost around £250K myself to Coral over the years, I hope to god he does

[Reevesy]

1 minute ago, Stu101 said:

The fact that its at proof suggests your understanding here is wrong. 

What?

[Stu101]

Just now, Reevesy said:

What?

Sorry - the fact that the judge is even hearing this argument suggests that what you wrote about ceasing to exist/phoenix club point was wrong. If that was correct, the case would have been struck out at the procedural hearing stage before any evidence was heard.

 

[Reevesy]

1 minute ago, Stu101 said:

Sorry - the fact that the judge is even hearing this argument suggests that what you wrote about ceasing to exist/phoenix club point was wrong. If that was correct, the case would have been struck out at the procedural hearing stage before any evidence was heard.

 

Of course it is correct. Rangers, the club formed in 1872, were wound up and ceased to exist. 

Charles Green bought their assets and formed a new club which started off in D3. Everyone knows that, even the Rangers supporters deep down (although perhaps understandably they try and deny it)

This is civil case is about a guy's bet though, nothing to do with the new club/old club stuff, so the case was always going to be heard. It's up to Coral's defence to make the (blatantly obvious) argument to the judge.

All the other clubs who went bust but now have a phoenix club in their place don't come out with nonsense about holding companies and buying history etc. Why is it only Rangers who do this? 

[Stu101]

17 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

Of course it is correct. Rangers, the club formed in 1872, were wound up and ceased to exist. 

Charles Green bought their assets and formed a new club which started off in D3. Everyone knows that, even the Rangers supporters deep down (although perhaps understandably they try and deny it)

This is civil case is about a guy's bet though, nothing to do with the new club/old club stuff, so the case was always going to be heard. It's up to Coral's defence to make the (blatantly obvious) argument to the judge.

All the other clubs who went bust but now have a phoenix club in their place don't come out with nonsense about holding companies and buying history etc. Why is it only Rangers who do this? 

Not getting into this again- as I've set out the position before. But if you can explain how under the insolvency acts you split the history for example (as a intangible) from the assets, then I might change my position. However in 6/7 years of insolvency and restructuring law I've never come across a way of doing this yet. (this is why the pro-forma wording in insolvency agreements transfers the "business, history and assets" - as the Rangers one did).

Anyway, in the civil case, if Coral could prove Rangers were a different entity, there would be no case (and it would not have made it though the procedural hearing- on grounds of specification, I think- but dont quote me on that). The guy is arguing that Rangers are the same club.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Stu101

[Reevesy]

2 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

 But if you can explain how under the insolvency acts you split the history for example (as a intangible) from the assets,

 

We'll use Ibrox stadium as an example for the assets. That's just a building which can change ownership. It will still be Ibrox stadium regardless. It can be owned by anyone.

History, like Rangers winning the ECWC for example, is something that is exclusive to that particular club. It cannot just be bought by the highest bidder. 

The club and the company were one and the same. Why else were original Rangers given a vote to allow newco into the SPL? There was technically two rangers at one time. One that held the SFA licence and another that needed to apply for one. It might be a very similar club to the last one, a convincing tribute act if you like, but it's not the Rangers you grew up with. Sorry.

[Stu101]

3 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

History, like Rangers winning the ECWC for example, is something that is exclusive to that particular club. It cannot just be bought by the highest bidder. 

Insolvency and company law in Scotland both say otherwise.

[Stu101]

9 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

The club and the company were one and the same. Why else were original Rangers given a vote to allow newco into the SPL? There was technically two rangers at one time. One that held the SFA licence and another that needed to apply for one. It might be a very similar club to the last one, a convincing tribute act if you like, but it's not the Rangers you grew up with. Sorry.

I'll prefer to rely on my opinion if that ok, having worked in this field for nearly 7 years, having contributed to one of the main textbooks on insolvency practice in the UK, and having been seconded to two of the big insolvency firms. Sorry.

In any event, I think the agreement that was reached on this board is that it doesn't matter the legal position. All's fair in the wind up stakes    

[Reevesy]

17 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Insolvency and company law in Scotland both say otherwise.

Those laws say that honours won by a club who went bust can be claimed by another club? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. What if Aberdeen had bought them instead of Sevco5088, would that mean they would now have three European trophies?

If so then I think I'll buy the assets of Third Lanark with some mates and parade the Scottish cup that "we" won around my garden.

[Stu101]

5 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

Those laws say that honours won by a club who went bust can be claimed by another club? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. What if Aberdeen had bought them instead of Sevco5088, would that mean they would now have three European trophies?

If so then I think I'll buy the assets of Third Lanark with some mates and parade the Scottish cup that "we" won around my garden.

No- the law is that the history cannot be separated from the underlying asset, they are intangible, yet exist as it must be accounted and evaluated for in the insolvency procedure.

Under Company law, parties can contact to buy and sell what they like, provided the same is not ultra vires, or stuck down by a court. The contract transferred the  "business, history and assets" or Rangers, and as far as I aware, has not been struck down by a court.

However, as titles, etc are awarded by a third party, they can be stripped- provided the rules of the third party allow for that. Did we ever get an answer if the SFA could do this?

But as I said, everyone has there own opinion of the Rangers saga. This is simply mine.

Off for a run. Have a good night.

 

[SMcoolJ]

14 hours ago, Stu101 said:

They cant, unless he is a solicitor advocate.  Only advocates and solicitor advocates can appear in the Court of Session.  

Weirdly, the case isn't on the rolls so I cant check. But I expect Sandison is Craig Sandison QC- who is seemingly one if the best commercial QC's in the country (according to people much smarter than me)

Didn't know it was Court of Session, like i say, haven't been following this.  There are plenty of in-house advocates/barristers, though in my experience, I wouldn't let them anywhere near a court.

[Parklife]

Closing arguments have begun. Break for lunch, back at 1:45pm. 

[aaid]

17 hours ago, Stu101 said:

I'll prefer to rely on my opinion if that ok, having worked in this field for nearly 7 years, having contributed to one of the main textbooks on insolvency practice in the UK, and having been seconded to two of the big insolvency firms. Sorry.

In any event, I think the agreement that was reached on this board is that it doesn't matter the legal position. All's fair in the wind up stakes    

One of my absolute favourite things on the TAMB is when an uninformed but optionated individual tries and argue facts with someone who works in, or has in depth knowledge of a particular subject.  

The best one was on the subject of post office closures when one TAMBer told another that he didn't know what he was talking about, obviously blindly unaware that the person he was arguing with was actually running the closure program.  

[RenfrewBlue]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

One of my absolute favourite things on the TAMB is when an uninformed but optionated individual tries and argue facts with someone who works in, or has in depth knowledge of a particular subject.  

The best one was on the subject of post office closures when one TAMBer told another that he didn't know what he was talking about, obviously blindly unaware that the person he was arguing with was actually running the closure program.  

To be fair it doesn't matter what any court says,  Rangers fans will always say it's the same club and other fans will disagree and wind us up. 

It's part of the bizarre fabric of Scottish Football. ? 

A bit like Celtic supporters claiming their European campaign this season was a success. We all know different. 

[ShedTA]

4 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

To be fair it doesn't matter what any court says,  Rangers fans will always say it's the same club and other fans will disagree and wind us up. 

It's part of the bizarre fabric of Scottish Football. ? 

A bit like Celtic supporters claiming their European campaign this season was a success. We all know different. 

well this is true RB though we tend to disagree not to wind you up but because we know the facts of what actually occurred. If some people want to forget them then that's their shout.

you still support a club called rangers and that's really what matters to rangers supporters. but you cant expect us to blindly comply. But then we've possibly been through this before I think...

[killiefaetheferry]

47 minutes ago, aaid said:

The best one was on the subject of post office closures when one TAMBer told another that he didn't know what he was talking about, obviously blindly unaware that the person he was arguing with was actually running the closure program.  

If it was on here it was more likely about post office armed robberies.

[RenfrewBlue]

1 hour ago, ShedTA said:

well this is true RB though we tend to disagree not to wind you up but because we know the facts of what actually occurred. If some people want to forget them then that's their shout.

you still support a club called rangers and that's really what matters to rangers supporters. but you cant expect us to blindly comply. But then we've possibly been through this before I think...

Sshh you'll set off another round of ground hog day. 

[ShedTA]

6 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Sshh you'll set off another round of ground hog day. 

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

One of my absolute favourite things on the TAMB is when an uninformed but optionated individual tries and argue facts with someone who works in, or has in depth knowledge of a particular subject.  

The best one was on the subject of post office closures when one TAMBer told another that he didn't know what he was talking about, obviously blindly unaware that the person he was arguing with was actually running the closure program.  

Was there not something similar on the Forth Road Bridge thread? Someone arguing about the engineering and what should and shouldnt have been spotted at the inspection. The 'opinionated person' asks the other person ' oh, and how many projects have you worked on ?' The other guy says' about a dozen'. ?

Not the answer that was expected me thinks. 

 

[phart]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

One of my absolute favourite things on the TAMB is when an uninformed but optionated individual tries and argue facts with someone who works in, or has in depth knowledge of a particular subject.  

The best one was on the subject of post office closures when one TAMBer told another that he didn't know what he was talking about, obviously blindly unaware that the person he was arguing with was actually running the closure program.  

Aye the post office closures were a resounding success. It was described later by various reports as "deeply flawed" and a "sham".One in 13 of the consultations was looked at 190,000 versus 2.7 million given total. Even Parliaments own investigation said it showed a "a real lack of concern" for post office users.

Not sure what the facts being discussed in this case were but the Post Office closures in a service context was an unmitigated disaster, which TAMBer was in charge of it?

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by phart

[Donaldo87]

Sandison suggests Kinloch was a "professional gambler" as he was "carrying on an activity in pursuit of profit."

Guess we are all professional gamblers then...albeit not very good at it most of the time...

[phart]

Personally i view it as the same Rangers, although that view can swap to suit my own needs. Judges don't make realities they make decisions on man-made rules.

[aaid]

23 minutes ago, phart said:

Aye the post office closures were a resounding success. It was described later by various reports as "deeply flawed" and a "sham".One in 13 of the consultations was looked at 190,000 versus 2.7 million given total. Even Parliaments own investigation said it showed a "a real lack of concern" for post office users.

Not sure what the facts being discussed in this case were but the Post Office closures in a service context was an unmitigated disaster, which TAMBer was in charge of it?

 

Regardless of whether that is right or not, the point still stands that I suspect they know more about the facts, detail and background than anyone else on here.

On your second point, I'm not a grass.