ian1964 10,419 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid to get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences. BBC Scotland has learned that Mr Green claims his contract with the Ibrox club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge. His lawyers have written to Rangers and want a court ruling on the claim. It is understood the fees involved could be in excess of £500,000. The court ruling could happen as early as next week. Mr Green and a number of others, including the club's former owner Craig Whyte, were arrested and charged earlier this month. The moves followed an investigation by Police Scotland into off-field events at the club in 2012 and 2013. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34339216 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Trade offs are not applicable Charlie. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 He's playing the diminished responsibility/dementia card. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 yet again a story leaked via Mediahouse to that cunt McLaughlin. he'd be better off trying to get legal aid than wanting Rangers to pay his legal fees. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 I cant imagine that the court would approve his request. If the charges brought about were in relation to his employment as CEO and as a result of being charged because of that position held then I would think that the court would rule in his favour. However, even though this is about his involvement in the purchasing of the Club, the charges relate to his dealings individually, not whilst acting as the CEO of the Club. Judge should throw it out - unless, of course, he has a contract which stipulates the Club would pay for any legal proceedings whilst he was CEO, without stating that it would need to be whilst carrying out the duties of that office - to be honest, nothing would surprise me with this club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 What a piece of shit he is. Would imagine the contract will stand until found guilty.The law is easily manipulated at times. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 if the judge doesn't laugh in his puss the country's legal system should be put down. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
govan_derriere 3 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Will Charlie will be in possession of a hand scrawled note from Imran promising him full legal backup at RFC's expense? Reciprocity would be expected surely. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Sorry Chuckles, when you are convicted of Fraud you will have breached any contracts in place ... Fraud A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury. Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. Fraud is a specific offence with certain features. Contracts Agreements between two entities, creating an enforceable obligation to do, or to refrain from doing, a particular thing. Nature and Contractual Obligation The purpose of a contract is to establish the agreement that the parties have made and to fix their rights and duties in accordance with that agreement. The courts must enforce a valid contract as it is made, unless there are grounds that bar its enforcement. Statutes prescribe and restrict the terms of a contract where the general public is affected. The courts may not create a contract for the parties. When the parties have no express or implied agreement on the essential terms of a contract, there is no contract. Courts are only empowered to enforce contracts, not to write them, for the parties. A contract, in order to be enforceable, must be a valid. The function of the court is to enforce agreements only if they exist and not to create them through the imposition of such terms as the court considers reasonable. It is the policy of the law to encourage the formation of contracts between competent parties for lawful objectives. As a general rule, contracts by competent persons, equitably made, are valid and enforceable. Parties to a contract are bound by the terms to which they have agreed, usually even if the contract appears to be improvident or a bad bargain, as long as it did not result from Fraud, duress, or Undue Influence. The binding force of a contract is based on the fact that it evinces a meeting of minds of two parties in Good Faith. A contract, once formed, does not contemplate a right of a party to reject it. Contracts that were mutually entered into between parties with the capacity to contract are binding obligations and may not be set aside due to the caprice of one party or the other unless a statute provides to the contrary. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I'm sure a perusal of his contract would indicate we should be suing him! 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.