RIFC Rebuttal

Having returned to court from lunch, Lady Dorrian, Lord Bracadale and Lord Malcolm have invited Mr Walker to rebut the case presented by Mr Green’s counsel. As was stated in the original hearing, Charles Green used the same firm of solicitors as Andy Coulson to draw up his indemnity agreement.

Mr Walker counters that the indemnity clause does not use clear words. He asks
why would anyone want to take on a liability for someone else’s negligence? He posits that the legal bills of an employee accused of ‘fiddling their expenses‘ would not be met and that ‘everyone was trying to get in the same position as Mr Coulson.

Mr Walker attests that “no-one could have contemplated picking up the tab for this sort of crime.” Mr Walker asks the question “can the victim (RIFC) be the indemnifier?” Mr Walker goes further by stating that Green’s appeal is not even close to the line of consideration. He also notes that the alleged crimes occurred prior to his appointment as CEO. Walker posits that the court should consider how “sensible business people” would understand the legal indemnity clause and that the court must distinguish between crimes carried out for personal gain as opposed to those seeking an advantage for his employers. Mr Walker states that Andy Coulson may have committed a crime but that this was done through a “misconceived understanding of his duties.”  I should add that Mr Coulson was convicted and imprisoned for his crimes. He sold his assets, including his house to pay for his defence costs, and is awaiting full recompense by News International’s insurer.
Lord Bracadale asks Walker if he is drawing a distinction between accidental and deliberate criminal conduct? Mr Walker states that he is not doing so. This is not surprising given the Coulson case precedent.

Lord Malcolm notes that the original judgment  “does not agonise on the nature of Rangers football club.” Mr Walker states that “in common parlance people do not talk about Rangers football club meaning Sevco Scotland.” Mr Walker posits that the club is the ‘trading entity.

Lord Malcolm states “I don’t think this is going to work Mr Walker. You cannot have it both ways.”

Lady Dorrian inquires “why would they do that?” (make a distinction between club and company).

Lord Malcolm responded that Rangers only talked about two different entities ‘so they could still say they won the league.’ 

Mr Walker is attempting to make the case that Green was only indemnified by being CEO of the club, and not as CEO of the limited company. Lord Bracadale countered that it would be”odd” if Green would not be indemnified as CEO of the Ltd company. At this point Mr Walker turns to Mr Blair for instructions.

Lord Malcolm opines that if witnesses were called “there is a great danger of self-serving evidence from the old regime”

At this point in proceedings, Mr Walker ends his submissions. Mr Dewar for Green is then invited to address the court.  Mr Dewar states that “the more this debate goes on the more the danger we make this more complicated than it really is.”

At this point the hearings ends. The written judgement will follow

Published by

sitonfence

FANS' CHOICE BEST NEW FOOTBALL BLOG 2016

14 thoughts on “RIFC Rebuttal”

  1. Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 39m39 minutes ago
    Green, Rangers QC claims, stepped down as “Sevco” chief exec at same time he became RIFC chief exec in December 2013.

    Mr Walker for RIFC plc appears to be confused – perhaps it’s all the confusingly similar company names. Green did not step down from TRFC Ltd (nee Sevco Scotland Ltd) when he became director of RIFC plc in 2012.

    Charles Alexander Green
    The Rangers Football Club Ltd: 29-MAY-2012 to 31-MAY-2013
    https://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159/THE-RANGERS-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/directors-secretaries

    Rangers International Football Club plc: 04-DEC-2012 to 31-MAY-2013
    https://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC437060/RANGERS-INTERNATIONAL-FOOTBALL-CLUB-PLC/directors-secretaries

  2. The signatories of Green’s contract should provide affidavits as to whether they thought they were giving him indemnity for criminal charges. Stockbridge, Imran, et al.

    Simples.

  3. Clubs are companies.

    One Club cannot be an earlier club that was liquidated. That’s just silly.

    Is the SFA following this legal advice?

    The old club had a distinct legal personality. The new club has a unique and different legal personality.

  4. The story Sevco Scotland was the same legal personality of old RFC, to do its job of bringing in money for four years, has been successful.
    Fans were duped.
    The story is being laid bare for the lie it is. And a lot of people are going to look foolish.

  5. Fascinating stuff. I have to say that I slightly favour Mr Walker’s argument but I wouldn’t be surprised if it went the other way. I look forward to the Lords’ and Lady’s judgement.

  6. It reads to me on this blog that the RIFC QC after seeking advice from the RIFC instructing solicitor, gave way and acquiesced. There formed a danger to the “same club” myth in the court room which further debate could have confirmed there an then TRFC was not RFC.
    Was it decided that yielding a strong case against Greens legal fees was a lesser of two evils?

    1. I disagree. Read my article again. There was an attempt to establish that Green was not the CEO of TRFC but the CEO of an amorphous entity, the club. As the club has no legal personality, it follows that Green would not be covered. Mr Walker attempted to present the club as the ‘trading entity’ but this was literally laughed out of court. This is what happens when you subject myths to legal scrutiny. Green engaged in a same club marketing strategy, but he knew it was a scam and his legal position, as articulated by Mr Dewar, confirms this.

      1. Surely an additional indictment against CG should therefore be the ‘same club’ scam for financial gain? Or is fleecing gullible punters entirely legal? Sale of Goods Act comes to mind.

        Police/ Prosecutors should consider this.

        I agree the duopoly amorphous entity was laughed out of court. That is clearly the ‘same club’ argument being laughed at/ threatened. So it was no longer ventured.

        I do wish that their Justices, rather than laugh at the split personality at TRFC, proceed to give as a defining written ruling on the silly dual concept.

      2. Lord Malcolm put this issue to rest in Inner House of The Court of Session. Are you unable to disseminate what I printed in bold type? Green is facing up to ten years in prison for each indictment. Is that not sufficiently severe for you? The Switcheroo preliminary hearings will resume at Edinburgh High Court on Tuesday.

  7. Kenny Miller does not play for the same football club he previously won honours for at Ibrox.

    Sevco Scotland (TRFC) has no claims on those honours and indeed did not even exist as a football club when those honours were won.

  8. It’s interesting that Green’s “entity vagueness” extended into his contract – which he must have known would be dissected in court one day if invoked.

    Was he trying to pull a fast one on the signatories who thought he meant “The Rangers Football Club Ltd” but didn’t notice he’d dropped the “Ltd”?

    Was dropping the “Ltd” Green’s attempt to extend his indemnity from the simple “The Rangers Football Club Ltd” to all entities named “Rangers Football Club” or similar: then, now and forever.

    Or is this amateurish sloppiness by the directors when drawing up contract terms that could cost millions.

    The amusing thing is that the judges’ comments are being treated like pearls of wisdom – revelations from on high – heresy – or pure evil – depending upon the observers stance – when they are simply stating the bleeding obvious. If the SMSM could have stated the bleeding obvious over the past four years, none of this would be the least bit interesting.

  9. JJ, I think we’re singing from the same hymn sheet except you believe your bold type to be absolute and an end to the issue whereas I do not believe the RIFC Board, SFA, SPFL, SMSM, Clyde SSB and diehard fans accept any of it at all.

    It’s just your interpretation of whatever the judge was meaning.

    Why no reports on these statements on STV? It supposedly puts a four year argument to rest.

    What is said doesn’t bother the above entities Nothing short of a written judgement stating TRFC is not RFC, not the same club but a new club with no history prior to 2012 will satisfy them. On that Keevins will be first out the blocks saying its a new club. The same way he volte face on EBTs.

    The SFA will not accept those verbal statements from the good Lord as trumping their legal advice it’s the same club. And that a club and it’s incorporated body are two separate things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s