der Berliner 3,263 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 This is a thread to clear a few things up. An FFer just gave this analysis, which is how I see it too ... 1.Sevco 5088 Limited set up. 2. Whyte appointed director by Green of Sevco 5088 but fails to lodge documents with Companies House. 3. Whyte pays Green £137,500 - exactly 25% of the deposit requested by D & P who state in documents that an agreement has been reached with Sevco 5088 Ltd to purchase the assets - the amount could be a coincidence. 4. Sevco Scotland Limited set up by Green. 5. D & P agree to sell the assets to Sevco Scotland, not Sevco 5088 6. Licence to play football issued by the SFA to Sevco Scotland (not 5088 so stop worrying we will lose it)* Months later........... 7. Green denies Whyte had anything to do with Sevco 5088 in a televised interview. 8. Secret out of context recordings are released with Green saying "You are Sevco" to Whyte 9. Whyte admits to paying Green £137,500 and a further £25,000 via an associate 10. Green says the money went to a Rangers account but he tried to send it back 11. Imran says the money went to his Mothers account and he also tried to send it back 12. Imran says he isnt quite sure whether the money in his mothers account is indeed from Whyte because the bank won't tell him 13. Whyte lodges form AP01, his appointment to become a director of Sevco 5088 signed by Charles Green. Sevco 5088 do not own Rangers, have never owned Rangers although technically they had an agreement to purchase Rangers but this was never fulfilled. NB: Whyte wasn't a Director of 5088, the form expired 14 days after it was signed. * Joint statement on behalf of The Scottish FA, The Scottish Premier League, The Scottish Football League and Sevco Scotland Ltd. We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. Licence went nowhere near Sevco 5088. Licence not an issue. It is timmy scaremongering which suggests otherwise. + + + I assume the above covers all that there is to know about Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 you've missed out the stage where d@p agree to sell the assets to sevco 5088. no doubt deliberately. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Sevco 5088 had an exclusive and binding agreement with D&P to buy RFC via a CVA or the assets of RFC via an asset sale. They sold the assets to an entirely different company Sevco Scotland which appears to have no right to obtain them. It appears D&P and Green & Co thought they had out flanked Craig Whyte, what we're seeing now is the fruits of the seeds they sowed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Sevco 5088 had an exclusive and binding agreement with D&P to buy RFC via a CVA or the assets of RFC via an asset sale. They sold the assets to an entirely different company Sevco Scotland which appears to have no right to obtain them. It appears D&P and Green & Co thought they had out flanked Craig Whyte, what we're seeing now is the fruits of the seeds they sowed. Just a Question from a corporate dummy. If it is found that Sevco Scotland had no right to the exclusive agreement then could all the other runners put in a complaint and try and get compensation(possible) or another bite of the cherry.(I doubt this) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 great question pete. cant see how they would go about undoing the last year but compensation or more likely just d@p getting in trouble who knows. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 If Sevco 5088 did have a binding contract with D & P, their remedy is against D & P, for breach of contract. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 The so-called binding contract spoken of by D&P was always suspect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Just a Question from a corporate dummy. If it is found that Sevco Scotland had no right to the exclusive agreement then could all the other runners put in a complaint and try and get compensation(possible) or another bite of the cherry.(I doubt this) I guess that's a question that will no doubt be answered by M'learned friends in due course. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,263 Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 you've missed out the stage where d@p agree to sell the assets to sevco 5088. no doubt deliberately. An FFer just gave this analysis, ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I guess that's a question that will no doubt be answered by M'learned friends in due course. I think this is definitely going to see a few people appearing before a judge in the not so distant future. My fear is they are not going to get to the brains of the operation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.