Again the precise mechanics of the floating charge, whoever owns – The Scottish Football Monitor

Again the precise mechanics of the floating charge, whoever owns …

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

Again the precise mechanics of the floating charge, whoever owns it now, are dictated by the way the original Ticketus funds were forwarded.  I confess following the trial outcome I’ve completely lost track of how that was done.  

Smugas Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Macfurgly

re the indemnities.  Yes that is my take on them as well.  I’d also throw these two thoughts out there.  To be clear they’re based on nothing but natural cynicism!

1/.  The 5WA would have to have been ratified at the various board levels.  I seriously wonder if the indemnity (plural?) were?  Why?  See 2.

2/. The very existence of the indemnities sucked from the beginning.  Why?  Because Charlie agreed to the unquantified footballing fine of LNS.  An old, wily, very experienced liquidation operator like Charles Green, having seen off the Sevco challenge of Whyte and having finally received assurances that his ‘continuation’ IPO sales pitch would be allowed to fly then decided to risk it all by agreeing to a blank cheque to LNS?  Absolutely not a chance!  He needed two things.  The quantum (I doubt he ever realistically intended to pay anyway) and, crucially, the line in the sand that an indemnity  would offer.  

Again I question if the provision of these were ever sanctioned at the appropriate level, hence the indemnity’s appended nature.  

But thats just my opinion.

ps. Goosy.  JJ has an interesting take on Lawell’s elevation this morning.


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Agreed AJ but I’d add a couple of points.  Whatever it’s legal veracity LNS found Rangers guilty and fined them.  This was, I think, Duncan Fraser’s point that regardless of his surprise at the outcome that you can’t appeal on the basis that you simply don’t like the decision.  Fwiw I have to say I find the words (those that we have) of Rod McKenzie disingenuous at best in this regard.  He appears to have a reason why “we can’t” at every turn.  Has anyone thought to ask the man “if we can” at any point?  I would have thought that should have been his original remit.

Secondly, to me, there has to be a reason why the indemnity leaked by Charlotte and the logical counter one that one assumes exists are separate agreements rather than within the 5WA itself.


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
WOTTPI

Correct, or to put it in RTC terms.

To win one (the BTC) by acknowledging the side letters in “proving” their non taxable nature was to lose the other (LNS) in acknowledging they existed at all.  And it is, sorry, should have been, just as inescapable the other way around.  

If, miraculously, they did somehow escape meaningful punishment in both then surely the “guards” had to go for rank incompetence for allowing such a situation to occur?  What was their purpose if it was not to guard against just such a distortion?  For all three elements to ask us to carry on as if nothing has happened is just taking the piss!


Recent Comments by Smugas

To Comply or not to Comply ?
A lot of references here to the 5WA re the proposed submission to the CAS.  
Don’t forget it was also heavily rumoured via a Charlotte revelation that there were counter indemnities in play between the SFA and Greens TRFC.  The basis of the indemnity was presumably that neither side would pursue the other for actions outwith those covered by LNS.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Amongst the obvious bilge one has to ask if a club can survive liquidation what the hell was the old regime doing that was going to lead to its demise?  Apart from trading profitably obviously….


To Comply or not to Comply ?

I see the Record article demands transparency from the SPFL and implies that the strength of feeling generated by Rangers* and its fans over the MacLennan issue cannot be ignored.

 

Alternatively if the Record could read its own article and realise the irony that its the fact the strength of feeling is being generated BY the Rangers’ support and not BY the actions of Mr Macglennan that is at the core of the problem.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
To be fair the meeja are not entirely without surprise this morning…

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44811549


To Comply or not to Comply ?
Ha ha saw that Ex Ludo

I did expect a strapline of “This advertorial was brought to you by the foreign company that makes the waistcoats”


SSL Certificates