I can understand the issue with Sevco Scotland being allowed – The Scottish Football Monitor

I can understand the issue with Sevco Scotland being allowed …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by Homunculus.

I can understand the issue with Sevco Scotland being allowed the buy the assets of Rangers (IL) when it was Sevco 5088 which had been granted that right. I think that was clearly a con, particularly when those assets were sold at such a cut rate. Did Green effectively pay nothing (if he had got the prize money etc which was allegedly part of the deal) and then revalue the assets up by tens of millions. I can see why Whyte, or people he sold the right to might want some form of compensation as the right was effectively stolen from him.

I do not understand the bit about the floating charge. If the person who holds the floating charge is not owed money then what difference does it make. They have a security covering no debt.

Things may get very interesting, and it certainly won’t help the current club raising funds if they find themselves having to do that in the not too distant future. Not if there remains doubt over the true ownership of the assets. 

Homunculus Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Congratulations to Aberdeen, I watched the game and it was a well deserved win.

It’s good to see Scotland still represented in both European competitions, long may it continue. 


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Can I just say, good luck to Aberdeen tonight. 

The game is on Premier Sports if anyone is interested.


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
I have joined the SFSA and completed their survey.

At the very least it will hopefully give some indication of the strength of feeling people have.


Recent Comments by Homunculus

To Comply or not to Comply ?
MordecaiJuly 19, 2018 at 13:58

Likewise, I wouldn’t see why there would be any requirement for an investigation.

Did the Court order him to do something – Yes

Did he do it – No

Did he have a reasonable, acceptable reason for not doing it – No

Is he in contempt of Court – Yes

There’s not a lot to it, no investigation or report required. The Judge has everything he needs in front of him. The person may try to mitigate what happens, however that would only be to soften the sanction. I also don’t think any sanction changes the fact that the order is still in place and he still needs to comply.

I have never been either a Police Officer or a lawyer.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
BFBPUZZLED
JULY 16, 2018 at 22:16
=====================================

I think there is sometimes a perception of the infallible lawyer, where they never get anything wrong and always see through these things.

I think its probably worth considering two things.

1, This contract will be under English law and Ashley will have a team of experts in the field. Would Rangers have done the same. 

2, Ticketus believed that Scots law was the same as English and that their rights to tickets they had paid for survived an insolvency event. Until the Court of Session disabused them of this notion.

It is entirely possible that it was not just a case of Rangers being desperate, its also entirely possible that their advisers made an arris of it as well. 


To Comply or not to Comply ?
BARCABHOY
JULY 16, 2018 at 20:15
================================

I couldn’t agree more.

All I was really saying was that they may not have had much in the way of options at the time. Their much publicised deal was not just economically crippling it was also terrible PR.

King need the “win” against Ashley to keep the support onside. Hence him not mentioning the £3m and this deal presumably. It was lauded as King giving Ashley a bloody nose. Presumably the zero hours contract master just sat back and thought fine, tell them what you want, so long as they start buying the shirts, they’ll find out soon enough. 

I think this deal shows just how bad things were / are if this is considered better.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
The old SDI agreement with Rangers had a 7 year notice period, which they would have been desperate to get out of.

The £3m to Ashley plus this “first refusal” deal may have been their only way out of it. The logic being that if they are matching JD Sports, or someone else then we will be getting at least a decent arrangement.

It’s the splitting the deal up business which is very strange, and indeed the bit they seem to be arguing over. Without that, whilst not ideal its probably much better than what they had previously. 


To Comply or not to Comply ?
It is worth bearing in mind that administration is normally used (at least by football clubs) as a form of self-defence.

A creditor doesn’t get paid, they move for winding up, the company places itself into administration. A company cannot be wound up if it is administration.

There is of course voluntary administration, but that is really just saying “we are fecked financially, can someone sort it out please”.

In either case, as I understand it, the directors hand over control to an insolvency practitioner. 


SSL Certificates