Charles Green Getting Huckled?

[AberdeenAngus]

Just caught up with this.

Surely has to be questions over the SFA involvement too.

[EddardStark]

It seems insane that the administrators are accused in being involved in criminal activity.

It seemed obvious at the time that they weren't doing their job right.........if Rangers had been any other company they would have been broken into small parts and sold off, to disappear forever.....but no, they were allowed to continue trading, to the extent that they could actually bring in a wheen of highly paid players with the blessing of the administrators.

What a feckin mess.

In hindsight being broken up would have been a travesty and a disgrace based on what it transpiring.

[RenfrewBlue]

I'll file you under delusional then.

Aye right. You tout your opinion as fact and call me delusional when I point out you have absolutely heehaw to back up your argument.

Try looking in the mirror for delusional folk, you'll he guaranteed to find them there.

[RenfrewBlue]

Just caught up with this.

Surely has to be questions over the SFA involvement too.

Don't say that, you'll set TartanJon off again.

[Ormond]

In hindsight being broken up would have been a travesty and a disgrace based on what it transpiring.

Nah. It would've saved Scotland of a scourge.

[Rossy]

In hindsight being broken up would have been a travesty and a disgrace based on what it transpiring.

Maybe, my analogy was a bit simplistic and black and white.

It did seem though to be handled like no other bankruptcy, ever. In my admittedly limited experience of bankruptcies.

[macy37]

Did you attend the victory parade through Paisley when St Mirren won the league? I did. So I know exactly what and who I saw.

I have no idea of the scum percentage in any support and neither do you.

What an odd thing to do. Attend a victory parade for another, rival indeed, team.

[RenfrewBlue]

What an odd thing to do. Attend a victory parade for another, rival indeed, team.

I've always gone to St Mirren games. Partly because for long enough I couldn't afford or get tickets for Ibrox. I also took my kids along as lots of their friends were Saints supporters and were going.

I should, in hindsight, have known better. I know what Paisley is like.

The only strange thing is you finding it strange. Not everyone seea their team as something that defines them. It's just a fitba team. There's no cultural significance in it for me.

Whisper it but I've been to lots of games that don't involve Rangers. Does that make me strange?

[Stu101]

Those are some pretty serious charges. Be interesting to know what the Section 106 charge against Green relates too.

[macy37]

I've always gone to St Mirren games. Partly because for long enough I couldn't afford or get tickets for Ibrox. I also took my kids along as lots of their friends were Saints supporters and were going.

I should, in hindsight, have known better. I know what Paisley is like.

The only strange thing is you finding it strange. Not everyone seea their team as something that defines them. It's just a fitba team. There's no cultural significance in it for me.

Whisper it but I've been to lots of games that don't involve Rangers. Does that make me strange?

Glory hunter then.

[northernscum]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[RenfrewBlue]

Glory hunter then.

:lol:

[tartandon]

fit and proper person?the SFA see king as a fit and proper person which says it all really

Craig boy was actually more fit and proper than 'The King'. If it turns out that the SFA test wasn't strong enough and that Craigy boy shouldn't have been allowed to take control, where does that leave The King..

The whole saga is highly entertaining and if this had been the plot of a soap opera, it would have been ridiculed for being too fantastic.

I wonder what Big Mike makes of the latest twist in the Zombie Gers saga.

[tartandon]

Uncle Phil's latest musings on the Sevco triangle.

I did chuckle at him referring to the The Rangers fans as a self-pitying lynch mob

[RenfrewBlue]

Uncle Phil's latest musings on the Sevco triangle.

I did chuckle at him referring to the The Rangers fans as a self-pitying lynch mob

Bit of a pointless blog to be honest.

All he's said is I can't mention the proceedings. Oh and this might have a negative effect on the current boards plans.

Wow. He must have spent all of 10 seconds thinking about all of that.

[EddardStark]

The Charge Sheet according to Sky Sports. Details of the relevant charges further down where posted by a legal buff on another board.

.

Green faced 4 charges:
Conspiracy
Fraud
Companies Act 2006, Sec. 190
Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, Sect. 28(1)

Whitehouse faced 2 charges:
Conspiracy
Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, Sect. 28(1)

Whyte faced 2 charges:
Conspiracy
Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, Sect. 28(1)

Furthers details

Conspiracy

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.



Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, Sect. 28
Involvement in serious organised crime

(1) A person who agrees with at least one other person to become involved in serious organised crime commits an offence.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a person agrees to become involved in serious organised crime if the person—

(a) agrees to do something (whether or not the doing of that thing would itself constitute an offence), and

(knows or suspects, or ought reasonably to have known or suspected, that the doing of that thing will enable or further the commission of serious organised crime.

(3) For the purposes of this section and sections 29 to 31—

“serious organised crime” means crime involving two or more persons acting together for the principal purpose of committing or conspiring to commit a serious offence or a series of serious offences,
“serious offence” means an indictable offence—

(a) committed with the intention of obtaining a material benefit for any person, or

( which is an act of violence committed or a threat made with the intention of obtaining such a benefit in the future, and “material benefit” means a right or interest of any description in any property, whether heritable or moveable and whether corporeal or incorporeal.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine or to both,

( on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.


Companies Act 2006, Sec. 190


Substantial property transactions: requirement of members' approval

(1) A company may not enter into an arrangement under which—

(a) a director of the company or of its holding company, or a person connected with such a director, acquires or is to acquire from the company (directly or indirectly) a substantial non-cash asset, or

( the company acquires or is to acquire a substantial non-cash asset (directly or indirectly) from such a director or a person so connected, unless the arrangement has been approved by a resolution of the members of the company or is conditional on such approval being obtained.

For the meaning of “substantial non-cash asset” see section 191.

(2) If the director or connected person is a director of the company's holding company or a person connected with such a director, the arrangement must also have been approved by a resolution of the members of the holding company or be conditional on such approval being obtained.

(3) A company shall not be subject to any liability by reason of a failure to obtain approval required by this section.

(4) No approval is required under this section on the part of the members of a body corporate that—

(a) is not a UK-registered company, or

(is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another body corporate.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

(a) an arrangement involving more than one non-cash asset, or

(an arrangement that is one of a series involving non-cash assets, shall be treated as if they involved a non-cash asset of a value equal to the aggregate value of all the non-cash assets involved in the arrangement or, as the case may be, the series.

(6) This section does not apply to a transaction so far as it relates—

(a) to anything to which a director of a company is entitled under his service contract, or

(to payment for loss of office as defined in section 215 (payments requiring members' approval).


Section 191

Meaning of “substantial”

(1) This section explains what is meant in section 190 (requirement of approval for substantial property transactions) by a “substantial” non-cash asset.

(2) An asset is a substantial asset in relation to a company if its value—

(a) exceeds 10% of the company's asset value and is more than £5,000, or

(exceeds £100,000.

(3) For this purpose a company's “asset value” at any time is—

(a) the value of the company's net assets determined by reference to its most recent statutory accounts, or

(if no statutory accounts have been prepared, the amount of the company's called-up share capital.

(4) A company's “statutory accounts” means its annual accounts prepared in accordance with Part 15, and its “most recent” statutory accounts means those in relation to which the time for sending them out to members (see section 424) is most recent.

(5) Whether an asset is a substantial asset shall be determined as at the time the arrangement is entered into.

Edited September 3, 2015 by EddardStark

[Debian]

Uncle Phil's latest musings on the Sevco triangle.

I did chuckle at him referring to the The Rangers fans as a self-pitying lynch mob

Why does he never write about the OAP who he failed to look after (while claiming a wage for doing so) who subsequently was in their chair dead (while still claiming a wage).

Excuse me if I refuse to listen to this cretin.

[sbcmfc]

Why does he never write about the OAP who he failed to look after (while claiming a wage for doing so) who subsequently was in their chair dead (while still claiming a wage).

Excuse me if I refuse to listen to this cretin.

No point writing about it for you, you already know the story.

I'm not familiar with the story, but seen it crow barred in a few times by Rangers fans to discredit him.

[UPROAR]

so apologies if this is a stupid question. But the allegation is that D&P in collusion with White & Green fraudulently transferred assets of the RFC. Presumably the people who were defrauded were the creditors ? Does that not mean that the creditors may still have a valid & strong claim on the assets if fraud is proven to have taken place ?

[ShedTA]

so apologies if this is a stupid question. But the allegation is that D&P in collusion with White & Green fraudulently transferred assets of the RFC. Presumably the people who were defrauded were the creditors ? Does that not mean that the creditors may still have a valid & strong claim on the assets if fraud is proven to have taken place ?

Yes I think so. And also the people and companies who invested in the original IPO. Most of them lost a lot of cash - but if the assets were acquired fraudulently then theinvestors could have a claim I think.

[Langtonian]

The Charge Sheet according to Sky Sports. Details of the relevant charges further down where posted by a legal buff on another board.

.Green faced 4 charges:

Conspiracy

Fraud

Companies Act 2006, Sec. 190

Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, Sect. 28(1)Whitehouse faced 2 charges:

Conspiracy

Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, Sect. 28(1)Whyte faced 2 charges:

Conspiracy

Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, Sect. 28(1)

Furthers details

Conspiracy

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, Sect. 28

Involvement in serious organised crime

(1) A person who agrees with at least one other person to become involved in serious organised crime commits an offence.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a person agrees to become involved in serious organised crime if the person—

(a) agrees to do something (whether or not the doing of that thing would itself constitute an offence), and

(knows or suspects, or ought reasonably to have known or suspected, that the doing of that thing will enable or further the commission of serious organised crime.

(3) For the purposes of this section and sections 29 to 31—

“serious organised crime” means crime involving two or more persons acting together for the principal purpose of committing or conspiring to commit a serious offence or a series of serious offences,

“serious offence” means an indictable offence—

(a) committed with the intention of obtaining a material benefit for any person, or

( which is an act of violence committed or a threat made with the intention of obtaining such a benefit in the future, and “material benefit” means a right or interest of any description in any property, whether heritable or moveable and whether corporeal or incorporeal.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine or to both,

( on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.Companies Act 2006, Sec. 190

Substantial property transactions: requirement of members' approval

(1) A company may not enter into an arrangement under which—

(a) a director of the company or of its holding company, or a person connected with such a director, acquires or is to acquire from the company (directly or indirectly) a substantial non-cash asset, or

( the company acquires or is to acquire a substantial non-cash asset (directly or indirectly) from such a director or a person so connected, unless the arrangement has been approved by a resolution of the members of the company or is conditional on such approval being obtained.

For the meaning of “substantial non-cash asset” see section 191.

(2) If the director or connected person is a director of the company's holding company or a person connected with such a director, the arrangement must also have been approved by a resolution of the members of the holding company or be conditional on such approval being obtained.

(3) A company shall not be subject to any liability by reason of a failure to obtain approval required by this section.

(4) No approval is required under this section on the part of the members of a body corporate that—

(a) is not a UK-registered company, or

(is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another body corporate.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

(a) an arrangement involving more than one non-cash asset, or

(an arrangement that is one of a series involving non-cash assets, shall be treated as if they involved a non-cash asset of a value equal to the aggregate value of all the non-cash assets involved in the arrangement or, as the case may be, the series.

(6) This section does not apply to a transaction so far as it relates—

(a) to anything to which a director of a company is entitled under his service contract, or

(to payment for loss of office as defined in section 215 (payments requiring members' approval).Section 191

Meaning of “substantial”

(1) This section explains what is meant in section 190 (requirement of approval for substantial property transactions) by a “substantial” non-cash asset.(2) An asset is a substantial asset in relation to a company if its value—

(a) exceeds 10% of the company's asset value and is more than £5,000, or

(exceeds £100,000.

(3) For this purpose a company's “asset value” at any time is—

(a) the value of the company's net assets determined by reference to its most recent statutory accounts, or

(if no statutory accounts have been prepared, the amount of the company's called-up share capital.

(4) A company's “statutory accounts” means its annual accounts prepared in accordance with Part 15, and its “most recent” statutory accounts means those in relation to which the time for sending them out to members (see section 424) is most recent.

(5) Whether an asset is a substantial asset shall be determined as at the time the arrangement is entered into.

Community Service then

[bruce778]

Ah there's the blame started already . It must have been the SFA that used EBTs and put you in £90m of debt and decided not to pay the taxman.The bastards.

The Rangers fans do realise that this has nothing to do with the admin/liquidation of Rangers ? No matter what happens in this case Rangers still didn't pay their bills and went tits up.

The police arrest the director of the majority shareholder at the time of admin, the two administrators and the director of the company that bought rangers from the administrators.

Aye, it has got absolutely nothing to do with the admin of rangers....

[bruce778]

so apologies if this is a stupid question. But the allegation is that D&P in collusion with White & Green fraudulently transferred assets of the RFC. Presumably the people who were defrauded were the creditors ? Does that not mean that the creditors may still have a valid & strong claim on the assets if fraud is proven to have taken place ?

The administrators sold the business and assets for a price. If it is that there was collusion to guarantee the business and assets went to green and co, the creditors' remedy is in damages for the difference between the price paid by new co (as a loan) and the amount they could have got from someone else.

[ShedTA]

The administrators sold the business and assets for a price. If it is that there was collusion to guarantee the business and assets went to green and co, the creditors' remedy is in damages for the difference between the price paid by new co (as a loan) and the amount they could have got from someone else.

So does that mean the current company/club whatever it is has any liability?

[UPROAR]

So does that mean the current company/club whatever it is has any liability?

I would think in terms of the club making progress the key words might be exposure or risk ? It would seem to me that there might be a great deal of uncertainty..