So the verdict has been pronounced…
———————————–
30 May 2013
Rangers International Football Club plc (the “Company”)
Conclusion of Independent Review
On behalf of Rangers International Football Club plc, the non-executive directors of the Company (the “Investigation Committee”) engaged the law firm Pinsent Masons LLP to investigate the connections between Craig Whyte and former and current personnel of the Company and its subsidiaries (the “Investigation”).
The Investigation was overseen by Roy Martin QC.
The Investigation concluded on 17 May 2013 and Pinsent Masons and Roy Martin QC have reported to the Investigation Committee. The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry.
Based on the assessment of the available evidence, the Company considers that the Investigation found no evidence that Craig Whyte had any involvement with Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited), the company which ultimately acquired the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. from its administrators; nor which would suggest that Craig Whyte invested in The Rangers Football Club Limited or Rangers International Football Club plc, either directly or indirectly through any third party companies or vehicles.
On 28 May 2013, a letter before claim was sent to (inter alia) The Rangers Football Club Limited and Rangers International Football Club plcon behalf of Craig Whyte, Aidan Earley and (purportedly) Sevco 5088 Limited. The Rangers Football Club Limited and Rangers International Football Club plc will be preparing a robust response to the letter before claim. However, given that legal proceedings are threatened in the letter before claim, it would not be appropriate to make public any further content from the report or to comment further about the contents. Pinsent Masons’ and Roy Martin’s reports to the Company are confidential and legally privileged. This announcement is not intended to and does not serve to waive privilege in the contents of the reports which remain confidential and legally privileged.
————————————————————–
And so the Pinsent Masons investigation rejects allegations that Mr Whyte is involved with Sevco Scotland Ltd. Nothing to see here. Move along!
But a couple of questions come to ind.
When the investigation was announced, it was stated to be “to investigate the connections between Craig Whyte and former and current personnel of Rangers and its subsidiaries.”
The announcement repeats that.
But it does not make any mention of connections with former and current personnel being accepted or rejected.
I wonder why?
The announcement states that it was based upon “the available evidence”. This therefore means that, as it concluded before Mr Whyte’s most recent letter of claim, it could take no account of that information. (I am sure that Rangers’ position is that that information changes nothing).
As for the question of publication of the report, then the world is not going to see it. In fact Mr Whyte’s letter of claim arriving seems to be very helpful timing, giving an excuse to make no more comment (though I am not suggesting Mr Whyte is in cahoots with Rangers!)
The report is stated to be privileged and confidential.
Will it be given to the SFA?
After all, Mr Regan wanted to see what happened with the report before deciding if Rangers could have breached the SFA conditions of membership.
Will Rangers pass over the report – or a redacted copy – or just the conclusion?
How will the SFA react to being told there is no connection between Mr Whyte and the present Rangers?
Is Mr Green in the clear or not?
Will his resignation still take effect?
Will he return with his name cleared?
As Sevco 5088 Ltd is a subsidiary, though non-trading, of Rangers, why no mention of Mr Whyte’s alleged connections with that company?
And, above all, I do not think Mr Whyte alleged he has invested in Sevco Scotland or Rangers Internationmal. His whole argument is that he invested in Sevco 5088 and that, allegedly, Mr Green performed a “switcheroo” on him!
And is there any significance in the announcement saying not that Sevco Scotland acquired the business and assets of Rangers, but that it “ultimately” did so? Does that imply that the transfer process was not a straight-forward one?
So, has the investigation even answered the questions it was set up to answer!
I suspect that (a) there are more questions arising from this report (or at least its announcement) than there are answers and (b) shall we have a sweepstake on how many of the questions are raised by mainstream media?
Posted by Paul McConville
Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville 
And what does it come down to – nothing. sevco battle cry.
Was any of this even addressed?
https://t.co/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.channel4.com%2Falex-thomsons-view%2Fcraig-whytes-lawyers-send-letter-action%2F4906&sig=05a4289967d2e4885c6f332930b5825e6a376bbc&uid=543302024&iid=9c249d60-0116-43a9-b05c-2eb01d294849&nid=12+158+20130529&t=1
It would be a strange situation and a costly waste of money, if the P&M report didnt answer the question that was set in the remit.
So, I guess that the Report makes a number of statements in conclusions, with most of these remaining private.
The basis given for this is that report is private and legally priveledged.
This logic that there are other conclusions leads to presumption that amongst the others, some or all arent as positive, or unequivocal as the one released in the statement.
Paraphrasing what the conclusion released as part of statement says:
Based on evidence available up to 17th May, CW is not and hasnt been involved in the current club.
CW camp points out that this conclusion is part of the basis of the action he intends.
Further in the statement, and not in reference to the Report, the LBC is mentioned and statement says any action will be staunchly defended (as you would expect). The LBC and relevant info arrived after 17th May, so conclusions not based on LBC info.
The conclusion released cant reasonably be used to defend any action, and indeed the CW camp say it might even assist in establishing the facts that his claim may be based on.
so, whilst firm conclusion stated from report, it doesnt seem to achieve much. It was set up because there was a question over collusion between CG and CW and others when the assets were sold from the administrators of the old club – a question that casts doubt over the rightful ownership of the assets subsequently used by the current club. The value of these assets formed the basis on which a subsequent share flotation took place, raising a reported £22m.
Questions need answered and havent been answered from reading the entire statement.
Whats the point of the statement then?
I would suggest its just what the SFA want to hear. CW (an individual deemed not a F&PP) had and has no involvement in current club. (I would venture that SFA maybe should hear some other conclusions contained in private report, but wont.)
Pingback: How Headines Can Misrepresent A Story – Rangers and Pinsent Masons Edition | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville
It appears to be one cover up after another with anything to do with this club. Oldco/Newco crooks one and all.
When the SPL launched the Nimmo Smith investigation those who suggested it may not be impartial were told that the opinion of legal experts is beyond reproach irrespective of the commissioning party.
Funny that, ain’t it ?
Lol.
If the likes of ww were actually Rangers fans and not paid trolls then I truly would be concerned and worried 🙂
” If the likes of ww were actually Rangers fans and not PAID trolls then I truly would be concerned and worried “.
ecojon, If you are joking then fine, if you are serious then you should be concerned about your mental health, you certainly worry me.
I’m sure mental health, or rather lack of it, is something you are personally familiar with.
Carntyne,
I’m sure you think a lot of things about me, and this cannot be good for your mental heath, you aint very good at trolling matey, Diadora stuff.
I didn’t get permanent IP bans from MSN UK &USA because I couldn’t swipe fleas like you away.
@Niall
You got banned because your heid couldn’t fit your photo frame.You are a big heided tosser, Jog on M8
My ego is only as large as my intellect, and my intellect is huge.
Dirty filthy Masonic scum. Every last one of them. Heartless, soulless con men being followed by fools
Just because one company owns the shares of another company does not mean it is liable or responsible for the debts or management or directors actions of that subsidiary. Unless a cross company guarantee exists( joint and several liability) It is a stand alone entity, Sevco 5088 is a stand alone entity, nothing to do with Rangers.
Rangers is Sevco ( Scotland) ltd and it has no remit nor interest to investigate links between CW and Sevco 5088, CW can sue Sevco 5088 until his nose bleeds, the only money he will receive will be from the directors of Sevco 5088 not Rangers.
I keep saying this and people keep telling me CW owns Rangers by default, he cannot, its impossible, he never bought Rangers through Sevco 5088. You have to own something before someone can steal it off you ,CW did not own Rangers, the breach of any agreement concerns CW and CG and Sevco 5088.
That is why there is no mention of Sevco 5088.
The misinformation put out last year that the assets were transferred from Sevco 5088 to Sevco( Scotand) may have been intentional, it would have put CW’s mind at rest because Sevco ( Scotland) ltd would be liable for any of his losses. The lie was to throw him off the scent for a few months and enable the share issue to take place.
CG is a sneaky so and so.
You’ve still not read the IPO have you ?
Read what we are being told what craigy boy is allegedly claiming too ?
But if CG so sneaky to out sneak Whyte – is Green stuffing anyone else like the fans and new investors… if so look out – cos no recovery that way…..
Elsewhere bears clamering (murdo) for green back,,,, ? unreal… seems greens conversion to the GERS brand (after hours of meetings with whyte and never being recorded in them saying he luved GERS…???? ) is all it takes for lamb to be welcomed back into the fold?????
Thats what Whyte is basing his claim on, do you not grasp that .
D&P, on receipt of a deposit,gave a binding contract to Sevco 5088,
Whyte paid the legal fees to set up 5088, and paid his share of the deposit by way of Ahmeds mums bank account.
Green then pulled of a switch of companies, read Whytes claim against Green/Sevco Scotland,
Whyte has also made a accusation, that he called out Green on this, prior to the AIM launch, Green did not inform the AIM or any potential investors, as the share price has vastly reduced do you not see how this could open the door for any one that makes a loss on their shares, the fans might not care about the share price but institutional investors are very interested.
Sevco 5088 had a binding contract with D&P to buy the assets, Green switched company to steal those from sevco 5088,
the report ed investigate confims that whyte played no part in Sevco Scotland,
Whyte is Sevco 5088, a company that Rangers claim is a subsidiary of theirs, how did that come about ?
When Craig Whyte was in charge at Rangers everything he said was challenged, scrutinised and ridiculed (and rightly so). Now he is taken action against Rangers he is apparently the font of all truth. Strange,no?
If the rangers is Sevco ( Scotland) ltd is it also a stand alone entity?
Were rangers1872 a stand alone entity and not a company/club?
port,
Not sure what you mean, Sevco 5088 is a limited company with limited liabilities, Sevco( Scotland) ltd cannot be liable for anything to do with Sevco 5088 unless there is a cross company guarantee or unless Sevco ( Scotland) ltd had any business with Sevco 5088.
The sale cannot be reversed, any losses suffered by CW must be paid by either Sevco 5088 or its directors, nothing to do with Rangers, even if they owned the company.
“nothing to do with Rangers” but you said “Rangers is Sevco ( Scotland) ltd” Sevco 5088 can and will take sevco(Scotland) to court.
portpower,
CW will take Sevco 5088 and its directors to court, Sevco( Scotland) has nothing to do with CW or Sevco 5088.
Niall Walker
May 30, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Sevco( Scotland) has nothing to do with CW or Sevco 5088.
============================================
If a court decides Sevco 5088 had a contract to buy the assets from the administrators and those assets should not have been sold and transferred to Sevco Scotland, you may have to change that assertion.
Of course we’ll have to wait and see, but don’t jump the gun.
” If a court decides Sevco 5088 had a contract to buy the assets from the administrators and those assets should not have been sold and transferred to Sevco Scotland, you may have to change that assertion.”
No I won’t, it was not Sevco ( Scotland) who broke the contract, it was CG in his capacity as a director of Sevco 5088 !!!!
Sevco( Scotland) cannot break a contract they never made.
CW IS 5088, why would he take himself to court,
he is going after Green, Ahmed and Rangers (SEVCO SCOTLAND)
Nonsense. But don’t let that stop your wee fantasy..
I’ll come back and guffaw at you yet again when that dream falls on its erchie [again.].
Stop listening to rubbish by folk who’ve never seen the inside of a stadium like ten-names, Mick, Monti and Eco. Have you not learned that by now ?
Lol.
willy wonka
May 30, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Nonsense. But don’t let that stop your wee fantasy..
I’ll come back and guffaw at you yet again when that dream falls on its erchie.
================================================
Its no fantasy that Rangers are dead and just awaiting the formality of burial.
The fact you have your head stuck up your arse on that point doesn’t change the facts.
So, no dream failure there.
Just a happy dream being realised.
1-0.
We now await Sevco suffering the same fate, and when they do we look forward to you’re incarceration in a home for the bewildered.
That will be 2-0.
How did your dream about the big tax case and title stripping go ?
Haw haw.
Tax case – some admission of ommissions, title stripping – penalties applied as guilt found in 4 cases….
both look like losses, and one still has appeal stage to go , next month.
What wonderful news!
‘Walter’ is to be elevated to the position of Chairman.
You may wonder why that’s good news.
Well, if he’s as careless with Sevco’s money when Chairman as he was with Rangers money as manager they should be on the slide in no time.
Now what was I saying?
Ah yes….
Wonderful news!….
” You may wonder why that’s good news.”
I know why it is good news, its called season tickets, the fans will now renew knowing a trusted Rangers man is overseeing things.
A football manager asks a CEO for the money to buy players, it is the CEO’S job to say if they can afford it or not, not the managers job, his job is to get the best players he can.
Niall Walker
May 30, 2013 at 2:12 pm
” You may wonder why that’s good news.”
I know why it is good news, its called season tickets, the fans will now renew knowing a trusted Rangers man is overseeing things.
=================================================
Missing the point Niall (in D)…again.
It doesn’t matter how much Sevco take in, its how they handle the money.
I’m afraid ‘Walter’s’ track record isn’t too good in that department.
Smith knows only one way to run a club.
Buy, buy, buy, and if that doesn’t work buy some more.
Perhaps Sally will get his warchest after all, but it would be a real silly Chairman who allowed the former Ibrox Legend to actually pick the players it was spent on.
Track record again.
Cartyne,
I am not missing the point at all, WS’s track record as a manager has got nothing to do with his duties as Chairman, two different functions, one has no financial responsibility, the other does. Walter Smith was told to build a team to qualify in the CL because they needed CL money to pay off debts, he was not creating the budget, he was working within it.
Now I know you insult most of the time.
when is this new puma strip coming out. June the 1st is coming closer.
Craig Whyte is officially taking Rangers to court!
CW will not get to court if he sues Rangers, nothing to do with them.
“Rangers is Sevco ( Scotland) ltd” your words Niall. He will take sevco Scotland(the rangers) to court.
port,
Repeating the obvious and tagging on a fantasy at the end of it lacks logic, Sevco( Scotland) ltd had no dealings with CW or Sevco 5088.
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?z8939396465&z=1600249365
portpower,
CW is purportedly suing Sevco ( Scotland) on behalf of Sevco 5088 and yet Sevco( Scotland) had no dealings with Sevco 5088, Sevco( Scotland) did not alter the transfer of assets, CG and the directors of Sevco 5088 altered the transfer of assets.
What has the actions of the directors of Sevco 5088 got to do with Sevco( Scotland), two different companies.
He is trying to embroil Sevco( Scotland) in a dispute between him and CG as directors of Sevco 5088, as I say nothing to do with Sevco ( Scotland). If Sevco ( Scotland) have benefited from the dispute then its up to CW to get compensation from CG and Sevco 5088, not Sevco ( Scotland).
” It would be a strange situation and a costly waste of money, if the P&M report didnt answer the question that was set in the remit.”
P&M are paid by Rangers to investigate Rangers affairs, their remit does not cover a subsidiary of Rangers, one they have never traded with.
u sure
Monti
May 30, 2013 at 12:11 pm
@Carntyne, I noticed with interest ‘shred it – Glasgow’ listed on the creditors list…
==================================================
Ironic eh?
Working for a company that is all over the media as being in deep financial trouble and not being clever enough to demand payment up front.
Of course they might be Hun supporters looking out for their
cluberm… ex-club.Whyte had an exclusive deal as sevco 5088 to purchase the stadium and training ground (ie; the assets) but this didnt occur. Sevco (Scotland) bought them. Green came from nowhere. Other interested buyers were derailed from bidding. From day one, experienced administrators were questioning why it was taking so long to wrap up the deal? It’s a massive con and the sale is an illegal one. Whyte has a mountain of evidence and he will start unleashing the evidence to verify hi claim.
Whyte has NO claim over Sevco Scotland. Even he admitted that this morning.
Wake up please.
willy wonka, do you have a link, I hadn’t realised he had come out and clarified his grievances.
That fountain of all knowledge, ten-names, quoted Whyte earlier.
So you can take it as gospel.
Lol.
@ Fra.
“It’s a massive con and the saale is an illegal one.
Whyte has a mountain of evidence and he will start unleashing the evidence to verify his claim”
How do you know what CW has or doesn’t have?
Please can you supply the details? Why not post them on here?
That is of course unless you are just making it all up!
Stevie