If/When Craig Whyte gets convicted.........

[forlanssister 3,060]

FS, many thanks for pointing that out. Given the germ of that idea, do you have any ideas along those lines?

 

A single test case, if funded by the RFFF (and or other shareholders) like you suggest it would basically be a non-class action class action if you know what I mean.

[RANGERRAB 3,306]

A single test case, if funded by the RFFF (and or other shareholders) like you suggest it would basically be a non-class action class action if you know what I mean.

 

No idea what you mean. Can you explain ? would oldco shareholders be able to sue SFA and/or SPL as a result of punishments handed out?

[forlanssister 3,060]

No idea what you mean. Can you explain ? would oldco shareholders be able to sue SFA and/or SPL as a result of punishments handed out?

 

Of course they could sue but whether they'd be successful is another matter.

[barca72 440]

Of course they could sue but whether they'd be successful is another matter.

 

Do you think they would be unsuccessful because Green signed the five-point-agreement? Would there not be something under the 'signing under duress' area?

[forlanssister 3,060]

Do you think they would be unsuccessful because Green signed the five-point-agreement? Would there not be something under the 'signing under duress' area?

 

Green and what he did is irrelevant in respect of any legal action by oldco shareholders against the SPL or SFA.

[barca72 440]

Green and what he did is irrelevant in respect of any legal action by oldco shareholders against the SPL or SFA.

 

If Whyte is convicted of obtaining the club illegally there could be all kinds of legal points to be argued against the SPL/SFA. However, RangerRab's point is about suing for punishments that were unmerited because said crime had taken place. When Rangers entered administration and before liquidation Rangers had earned but not been paid second place prize money. This money is still due at this point to the oldco. At this point the SPL have only deducted ten points from Rangers, hard to argue with that. Other than argue positions against the SPL for allowing Whyte to take over Rangers, the SPL haven't done too much wrong. When Rangers entered liquidation ( again this is down to Whyte, not the SPL ), the SPL voted Rangers out of the SPL and took their SPL membership away. At this point the second place prize money had not been paid to 'oldco' Rangers. Duff & Phelps were supposed to go after it but never got it. Maybe BDO are fighting for it for the 'oldco' shareholders, they're not saying a helluva lot. At the point where Green bought Rangers through Sevco Scotland, as I understand it, he was trying to argue that he was now entitled to the second place prize money. I have only ever read the draft copy of the five-way-agreement and in there the SPL/SFA/Liewell gang manage too sequester the second place prize money. So that was my point in the last post that although the second place prize money was due to the 'oldco', because of/at the point of Green signing the five-way-agreement under duress you would have a case against the SPL, this could prevent or at least delay a merger which would see the SPL disappear voluntarily if they have to answer a law suit. The SPL would of course argue that Green signed away the prize money as part of the five-way-agreement and is hence legally binding. Now I'm not a lawyer but if you are, can you tell me if this kind of legal action by the RFFF on behalf of the 'oldco' shareholders would fly, or is the recovery of said money solely down to BDO ?

[Bluedell 5,356]

regards the Rangers takeover 2 years ago will the shareholders in the oldco sue the SFA/SPL for punishments which weren't merited as a crime had taken place ?

 

No. The fact that an individual did something illegally to acquire shares does not absolve the company of any subsequent actions. The owning of shares and decisions by directors are 2 separate things.

[RANGERRAB 3,306]

No. The fact that an individual did something illegally to acquire shares does not absolve the company of any subsequent actions. The owning of shares and decisions by directors are 2 separate things.

 

if Whyte gets convicted then surely Rangers were victims of a crime & yet got punishments from the SFA & SPL. A bit like a house break-in & the homeowner gets charged as opposed to the house-breaker.

The part I find most interesting is whether or not the SFA knew Whyte was committing a crime by not paying PAYE/NI and took no action. As a governing body should they not have done something ? Surely oldco shareholders would have a case there if it can be proven the SFA knew about this ? negligence ?

Not to mention the SFA's fit & proper persons requirements for which Whyte would have surely failed and wouldn't have got Rangers in the first place. I simply don't buy Regan's alleged claim he knew nothing about Whyte's background until Daly's documentary in Oct2011.

[Bluedell 5,356]

if Whyte gets convicted then surely Rangers were victims of a crime & yet got punishments from the SFA & SPL. A bit like a house break-in & the homeowner gets charged as opposed to the house-breaker.

 

 

The purchase of the shares and decisions by directors are 2 separate issues. If Whyte did something illegally during the takeover than he can be prosecuted but that is Whyte, the individual. It was Rangers, the company, that didn't pay the tax, and Whyte could be done in his position as director for illegal trading, but it's too tenuous a link under law to say that shareholders can sue the SFA and SPL for something that the company did.

 

I know that you can see that one lead to the other, but they are distinct and different actions.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

don't the sfa rules prohibit them from punishing the victims of a crime?