stewarty

Totally agree Craig. We need to see how things pan out over the summer and make an assessment then.

Regardless whether you find him, I'd love it if you could re-create the Monaco photo that Mark Daly also re-created during his mockumentary. We could do a Gersnet spot the difference!

We need to look at the signings as a whole once things settle down post 1 September. Key will be who else leaves. Although we've brought in a few new players, who's to say that we don't get rid of one or two of those on higher wages and that we end up with a better squad which actually costs less than season 2012/13's? The wages we are no longer paying to Kyle, Sandaza and Alexander alone should easily cover the wages for Daly, Clark, Bell, Law and Smith. I know who I'd prefer to have.

Somewhere in that ballpark, I'm sure.

Perhaps. But his lack of involvement in football is a concern. Bain and Green both had that before being CEO.

Before his appointment as chair, I'm fairly sure he was being paid around 40k per year for his non-exec director role.

It will all come out in the wash should Craigy actually take us to court.

I'm happy. There are justifiable concerns in Walter's appointment. He doesn't appear to have significant board level experience when we clearly need stability that would surely come from having a proven performer. But Walter will have attended numerous board meetings in his capacity as football manager. He has also attended meetings since his appointment as non-exec director. There is a multitude of information and training available to Walter, and I've no doubt he will have taken soundings from his no-doubt excellent contact list. Therefore, I'm sure he will have a very good idea of what is required. All things considered, Walter is exactly what we need. We need someone with the standing in the game to take us forward in a positive manner. Someone who can support out Acting Chief Executive who's credentials for their role I would say are far less clear.

The role of a non-exec is to hold the executive to account for performance in achieving the agreed strategic direction of the company. The chair is the leader of the board. It's Walter's job now to manage the board process, agendas, meetings, etc. in terms of voting, they often have a casting vote, as mentioned. They also have duties towards shareholders and ensuring their interests are represented. In a football sense that's a tricky balance as the interests of fans carry significant weight; but not always from a shareholding perspective.

Quite excited to see this lad play. Certainly seems to have an eye for goal.

How could a firm of low level paper gatherers afford to sponsor anything!?! Haha

Agreed. Ruling nothing out or in.

Seems very likely this fakes character is either Whyte or a close associate. The desperation in this is quite amusing though.

My feeling is that DK is working in the background to secure enough of a share to at least get onto the board. Hopefully that will give us some stability. Also suspect we'll see moves once the pinsent masons report is announced, so might even be next week.

Certainly very interesting. Wonder if Mark Daly will make a comment?

I believe they were, but the questions being asked are not of the conduct of Deloitte. The investigation is not a legal one, so raiding for evidence was never the intention. And it's far from meaningless. See my post yesterday on why it had to happen.

Just to be clear, this is an external examination. Carried out by Pinsent Masons, with support from Deloitte, and overseen by an eminent QC. An evidence based report with conclusions as to the relationship between Green and Whyte, should e enough unless it states that serious questions remain outstanding. It'll be that scenario that will see others decide to have a look for themselves.

Agreed. See my post from yesterday for my thoughts on the matter.

What's the significance? We've know for some time that they are one of the original investors. The placing letter only seems to confirm what we already know unless I'm not understanding it. Like I say, seems to me that the issue is regarding the change from sevco 5088 to sevco Scotland, and Whyte's claim that this was fraudulent. These documents don't help us understand tag any further. What would though, are documents identified that look at the final deal out together by D&P and Green's consortium. Something I'd hope this independent examination can get to the bottom of.

From a quick scan they are placings for Investment in sevco 5088. But as he claims, green switched things to sevco Scotland to isolate Whyte and remove him from the deal. All these documents do is give some interesting info but they are not exactly damaging unless it can all be out into context.

Possibly. But if we assume that Green and Ahmad cooperate fully with the investigation, including the cooperation of their advisors, then I think the substance of what has happened should be easy to piece together for a forensic investigator. I cannot imagine D&P failing to cooperate either. The question of CW's involvement of the inquiry will be a curtesy as much as anything, so that the investigation can be as full as possible. But the likelihood they want any real scrutiny I'd fancy is remote. Hence why they are happy to leak so much online. What I forsee happening is the club being able to point to this report and conclusions and then say to the likes of the stock exchange, our investors and shareholders, sponsors, regulators and supporters: here are the facts as identified and verified by the independent QC. If anyone wants to challenge these facts then they need to provide solid evidence rather than heresay. That might not stop an increasingly desperate Whyte, but it should allow things to be more easily dismissed. Especially if the club starts defending itself legally, rather than allowing the current madness to continue.

I don't think this is Deloitte investigating themselves. They are doing some forensic investigation for sure, but that is being overseen by Pinsent Masons and by an independent QC. The Harper MacLeod role in the SPL commission was different. We were told they were low-level paper gatherers when it actually turned out that their partner was heading up the investigation and arguing the case against us. But I take your poiont about us not being treated fairly. However, by structuring the process like it has been, there are sufficient checks and balances in place to adequately defend the process against accusations of partiality. Hence why I say, if the SFA want to question the outcome, it will be on their own coin - and I doubt even they will be keen to fork out a 6 or 7 figure sum like we have.

Firstly Steve, this wasn't an internal review. It was an external review independently overseen by a QC. Secondly, we await official confirmation of the outcome but I'd wager this could turn out to be the best 6 figure sum the club has paid out in a while, on the assumption adamski's information is correct. If the SFA want to conduct their own review then they can go ahead, but we've seen how much it cost us, so it will likely be similar for them, so I doubt they'll go anywhere near it unless serious questions remain. I've said already that this was a necessary process to go through. I reckon the 7 figure sum quoted by some is part of the hyperbole surrounding the boardroom shenanigans. But as I've also said, once this report is public, stand by for the real powerplays. Who will step up and play?

Still think all of the leaks and stories coming out just now are posturing. The real powerplays will be made once the investigation is complete and findings are published. Regardless of whether you are a fan of Green or otherwise, lets all take sides with the club first and foremost. Shareholders will come and go, the club will remain. [insert Bill Struth quote]

@mister_bee_