rbr 1,247 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Make of it what you will http://www.scribd.com/doc/136354329/Sevco-Whyte-Resigned http://www.scribd.com/doc/136354086/Sevco-Earley-Resigned 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 ... but, but, but ... ach well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) 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. Edited April 17, 2013 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 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. I expect we may hear a tape of Whyte or Earley inviting Green to a board meeting of Sevco 5088 with Green declining the meeting but inadvertently giving credence to the Whyte/Earley claims of being directors and having equitable ownership of Sevco 5088. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I expect we may hear a tape of Whyte or Earley inviting Green to a board meeting of Sevco 5088 with Green declining the meeting but inadvertently giving credence to the Whyte/Earley claims of being directors and having equitable ownership of Sevco 5088. Being a director gives no credence to any sort of ownership. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Being a director gives no credence to any sort of ownership. Which is what Whyte is alleging in regards to Green and Sevco 5088. Despite Green's protestations it appears that Whyte and Earley were directors and Whytes claim of equitable ownership of Sevco 5088 remains to be disproved by Green (or to be fair proven by Whyte and Earley for that matter). The email Green showed me from Earley was dated 29 October 2012, 6 months on from there and all Green has done it appears is a failed attempt to have Sevco 5088 stuck off. It appears that Whyte is running rings round Green but it also appears Green is letting him do so, something stinks. From the tapes it appears that it was Whyte who instructed Field Fisher Whitehouse to set up Sevco 5088 and even though Whyte's cheque allegedly bounced a subsequent payment from Earley via Liberty (unsure if it's Capital or Corporate) for £25k set up costs was made to Green. Whyte's certainly building up a case for him having equitable ownership and Green's defence against the claim is looking as dodgy as Rangers has looked on occasion this season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 if you ask me it's starting to look like this has all been set up so whyte can win this case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Despite Green's protestations it appears that Whyte and Earley were directors and Whytes claim of equitable ownership of Sevco 5088 remains to be disproved by Green (or to be fair proven by Whyte and Earley for that matter). 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. The email Green showed me from Earley was dated 29 October 2012, 6 months on from there and all Green has done it appears is a failed attempt to have Sevco 5088 stuck off. 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 if you ask me it's starting to look like this has all been set up so whyte can win this case. 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 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. Nothing in this whole sorry saga could be described as remptely approaching "normal"! 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. Emails from Aidan Earley to Imran Ahmed and vice versa, I belief it was the same ones he was showing round at the RST dinner. 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.