Bluedell

And why would Ross County and St Mirren vote to have the rules suspended?

I thought it was the club rather than the police that had prevented it at the start of the season.

What were the emails saying?

Do you mean that Green and Whyte have conspired that Whyte will win the case? I can't see how Whyte benefits from it in respect of ownership of Rangers. The fact is that Sevco Scotland purchased the trade and assets. That can't be undone and if Whyte has any claims then all that he can do is claim for damages from either D&P or Green.

The normal way to prove or disprove who owns what shares would be to go to the statutory books. It would be (sort of) amusing if both parties produced different sets of statutory books. What email? I haven't been reading all the threads so if it's something that you've previously explained, apologies as I've missed it.

Was it Lawwell's daughter he was going out with? Edit - no, it was Strachan's neice.

Being a director gives no credence to any sort of ownership.

Not fit enough

Resigned or removed? Was it Whyte who resigned after making a point that he was a director? Was it Green who removed him, therefore confirming that Whyte was actually a director? If it was Green who did it then I would have thought that the correct course of action would be to contact Companies House and get his name removed as being appointed rather than allowing the appointment to stand, thereby confirming that a board meeting took place to have Whyte appointed? Is this a strategic error by Green? It would be interesting to know who processed it and who is the person with the filing authority for the company.

What kind of article is that? It states a new document has emerged but then doesn't refer to it. Or is it just referring to the form that's been viewd over the last few days? I don't understand the point of the article.

Great news! Doesn't mean that there won't be another effort to keep us down though.

Green appears to be the only director formally appointed.

By getting the director of Sevco 5088 to agree to waive the original agreement and enter a new one with the other company. Easily done and totally legal in itself.

There's a strong possibility that Green had spoken to HMRC and knew there wasn't any chance of a CVA.

Not sure if this is correct. There has been no suggestion that there was ever a board meeting held formally appointing Whyte.

The form referred to in the OP, if genuine, could just be another example of Green shafting Whyte. I've had people sign these forms and they end up not being appointed for one reason or another. However even if what I've said is correct, and my gut gels me it is not, there are still lads of unanswered questions.

That statement by some alleged anonymous "spokesman" is incorrect.

Saying "you are Sevco" means nothing. TBH I haven't read the whole thing so haven't got all the details, but was Whyte actually a registered shareholder of 5088? If not and he doesn't have anything signed then he hasn't any comeback. I know you have mentioned earlier that verbal contracts are enforeable but it's easier said than done. However, it's all "what ifs" . You didn't answer my question. What is it you're wanting here? A detailed explanation that you won't believe and won't change anything anyway?

So what is it you want? You won't believe any explanation that comes out and there will be nothing worthwhile in black and white. I don't for a minute believe that Green planned to allow Whyte any involvement in the club. Whyte was always going to be stiffed. My major concern is the lies told but there's not much anyone can do about it now.

But surely it's all irrelevant? Sevco 5088 turned out not to form any part of the final deal, so whatever was agreed in respect of that company doesn't matter.

He's spot on, on this occasion.

Shame? No. Frustration? Yes.

This bit: So if any criminality is involved, the SPL / SFA sanctions/embargoes & fines would be deemed illegal."Oldco" shareholders would have a case for suing the SFA / SPL for lose of revenue etc. It is my opinion that the SFA / SPL are desperate to force reconstruction through to allow them to "Newco" & thereby avoid any legal action by "Oldco" shareholders.

The same principles apply. Even if the takeover of old co involved criminality, the subsequent transactions of the company (failure to pay HMRC, for example) need to be looked at seperately. The actions of purchasing shares have nothing to do with the company itself. A transaction between Murray and Whyte has nothing to do with the SFA or SPL per se and a transaction between Rangers and Ticketus (or the related guarantee) can only be looked upon in a stand alone basis.

What a lot of rubbish. Any criminality involved in the takeover is independent of any deals or trading that newco subsequently does.