RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 King said as much against Ashley, that he would be held to account financially for the losses tp the club on the merchandise contracts. The problem with this I'd have thought is that even if the fraud convictions are all successful there will inevitably be appeals and any recompense wil be years away 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) The problem with this I'd have thought is that even if the fraud convictions are all successful there will inevitably be appeals and any recompense wil be years away Then again they might be found bang to righst with no hope of appeal, then Ashley is up next for the club. Edited February 3, 2016 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 If fraud convictions are successful I would guess the current board will want to revisit all contracts signed by those individuals during their time at Rangers And one might extend that to the fat wank who might be prevailed upon to reconsider to avoid having a court pour over exactly how he persuaded the chuckles and friends to sign a deal that evidently loses the club money on every shirt sold. Whilst a speedy resolution is probably preferable, I'd dearly love to see the whole shenanigans comprehensively exposed in court for all to see. I doubt that'll happen but it would be nice to have confirmed exactly why Green and his cabal were so determined to hand the club to Ashley in tranches for spare change 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I don't think there's been anything unreasonable so far but I'd like to remind everyone to be very careful in what allegations they make with regard to this issue and the ongoing High Court fraud case involving former club associates. Obviously this is an excellent outcome and MA will now need to be very careful about any future litigation he brings - not to mention outstanding cases. In this case the judge was thankfully very savvy and well aware of the ongoing and wide-ranging narrative - although perhaps he played to the gallery a bit too much. The details of the retail deal remain unclear but any fair-minded observer would acknowledge they appear onerous on the club and one can only question the rationale of those supposedly acting for the club when they agreed it. SD merely took advantage of our weak position in that respect. Juxtapose this result with the ongoing case then it's a positive but there's a long, long way to go before we find out the truth. One wonders how many other deals will be being done in the background to avoid that eventuality? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The problem with this I'd have thought is that even if the fraud convictions are all successful there will inevitably be appeals and any recompense wil be years away 7 years worth? Because that's what we are looking at, at the moment to get out of this horrendous contract. Good job by the club lawyers and nice to see a judge taking the litigation for what it was. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc 280 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) I don't think there's been anything unreasonable so far but I'd like to remind everyone to be very careful in what allegations they make with regard to this issue and the ongoing High Court fraud case involving former club associates. Obviously this is an excellent outcome and MA will now need to be very careful about any future litigation he brings - not to mention outstanding cases. In this case the judge was thankfully very savvy and well aware of the ongoing and wide-ranging narrative - although perhaps he played to the gallery a bit too much. The details of the retail deal remain unclear but any fair-minded observer would acknowledge they appear onerous on the club and one can only question the rationale of those supposedly acting for the club when they agreed it. SD merely took advantage of our weak position in that respect. Juxtapose this result with the ongoing case then it's a positive but there's a long, long way to go before we find out the truth. One wonders how many other deals will be being done in the background to avoid that eventuality? Sorry Frankie you are being too charitable here. SD did not just take advantage of our weak position they screwed us and locked us into a contract that any back street loan shark would be delighted to have. Did we really have no other option? Was there no other source of finance available to us that any reasonable director would have chosen ahead of this deal that is so loaded against us that it is beyond outrageous. I simply cannot believe that and it begs the question what those in charge of Rangers at the time saw as the positives in this arrangement. There might have been something that came to them as individuals, that we will find out about in the fullness of time, because there was certainly nothing in this for Rangers as a business. A year or two of SD leaching us before the deal is up for review, maybe I could see something in that. But 7 fucking years!!! <snip>. I look forward to Chuck's trial with great interest and I hope this mess gets exposed in full. Edited February 4, 2016 by Frankie Unsubstantiated claims 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Sorry Frankie you are being too charitable here. SD did not just take advantage of our weak position they screwed us and locked us into a contract that any back street loan shark would be delighted to have. Did we really have no other option? Was there no other source of finance available to us that any reasonable director would have chosen ahead of this deal that is so loaded against us that it is beyond outrageous. I simply cannot believe that and it begs the question what those in charge of Rangers at the time saw as the positives in this arrangement. There might have been something that came to them as individuals, that we will find out about in the fullness of time, because there was certainly nothing in this for Rangers as a business. A year or two of SD leaching us before the deal is up for review, maybe I could see something in that. But 7 fucking years!!! <snip>. I look forward to Chuck's trial with great interest and I hope this mess gets exposed in full. Overly charitable perhaps (or perhaps too careful) but like I say you can't say stuff like what I've removed without leaving yourself open to litigation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,345 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 If fraud convictions are successful I would guess the current board will want to revisit all contracts signed by those individuals during their time at Rangers They may want to revisit them but unless there's some connection with the contract to the fraud then they may not be able to get them quashed. If SD isn't mentioned at the trial then it will be very difficult. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 They may want to revisit them but unless there's some connection with the contract to the fraud then they may not be able to get them quashed. If SD isn't mentioned at the trial then it will be very difficult. What if the people who agreed the deal are the ones convicted? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc 280 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Overly charitable perhaps (or perhaps too careful) but like I say you can't say stuff like what I've removed without leaving yourself open to litigation. Here's me thinking I was being clever by not mentioning exactly what I thought that was. Maybe a job lot of massive mugs was used to sweeten things. Cos we were certainly for mugs. Point taken though. Will be more careful with my language in future. 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.