Quantcast

D&P blow their own argument to shreds in court

1179

The core essence of Duff and Phelps protests at the SFA judicial panel punishment handed out this week, as they state, is that: “in our opinion do the panel fail to have properly apportioned culpability between the Club and Craig Whyte”.

Yesterday we found out the truth about how Duff and Phelps really think about apportioning culpability between a company and a director.

The Lawyer magazine yesterday reported:

“The administrators are suing Collyer Bristow and Whyte’s takeover vehicle the Rangers FC Group for at least £25m in damages. The firm is accused of conspiracy, breach of undertaking, negligence and breach of trust, with Withey – who acted as the club’s company secretary – complicit in the allegations.”

The Lawyer goes on to say that Mark Phillips, QC, acting on behalf of Duff and Phelps, “told the court that there was no evidence anyone else at Collyer Bristow was involved, but that as Withey had authority to act for the firm, it was liable for the losses flowing from his “conspiracy”.

Get this clear; in the opinion of Duff and Phelps QC, as Withey had authority to act for Collyer Bristow, Collyer Bristow was liable.

Craig Whyte acted on behalf of Rangers after 6 May last year just as the old board acted on behalf of the club before then.  These people are using one argument to chase an enormous £25m but using the counter argument to subvert an SFA judicial panel.

The rules of the SFA are clear, Rangers are ‘liable’ for the actions of their directors, as anyone using this argument to pursue £25m should be well aware.  These people are shameless.

Buy a hard copy of CQN Magazine, issue 7, by clicking on the button below.  You can read online here.


Ship to:




Click Here for Comments >
Share.

About Author

1,179 Comments
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 32

  1. Pay your funkin bills.Murray stabbed the guy and handed the knife to whyte.

     

     

    top 5?

     

     

    KLV

  2. Paul67 – D&P have very very quickly learned the ways of the darkside…..I wonder if there is a common denominator in who has schooled them?

     

     

    Shame these tactics fall down flat in the Information age…..

     

     

    The Internet Bampots are giving them one hell of a doing

  3. Bad timing by Duff & Phelps to bring Murray’s name back to the fore today, with one of their many other court cases, just when they are arguing to the SFA that it is all Craig Whyte’s (our hero) fault.

  4. deekbhoy@ 11:14

     

     

    Nice throw away line missed by MSM by the Ernst and Young guy on Newsnight when asked about the full wages kicking in June as being a problem he agreed ‘because it is unlikely any CVA could be in place in time’

     

     

    With none of the ‘bidders’ wishing to go forward until the sanctions appeal is heard, it makes a CVA well nigh impossible before the players wages revert to full pay

     

     

    They all know we are nearing the end game. They are just looking for someone to pin the blame on hence the mock outrage at the SFA

     

     

    A month at best and it will all be over

  5. Paul67,

     

     

    Selective reasoning by D+P???

     

     

    In a similar fashion to Traynor and co in now blaming for SFA for their lack of due diligence re Whyte “fit and proper” suitability?

     

     

    Shameless indeed, every last one of them.

     

     

    They all deserve their just desserts – and for once jelly and ice cream will not cut it! – and i for one cannot wait to see it stuffed down their throats!

     

     

    HAIL! HAIL!

     

    Token

  6. Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on

    Has Bill Leckie ditched his recent crusade to locate and pursue all missing VAT contributions from all those that got a lift over the turnstiles ?

     

     

    The lad is a

     

     

    Should Charles marry Camilla? By Bill Leckie & Julia Clarke

     

     

    No

     

     

    We need a moral lead from our king-to-be,

     

     

    WHY should Charles expect us to bow and scrape to his bit on the side, the woman who got between a husband and wife?

     

     

    Diana may have rocked the throne but ironically, if they marry, Camilla’s could be the hand to topple it forever.

     

     

    Charles may have a constitutional right, but not a moral one to inflict Camilla on the nation as his queen.

     

     

    And if he insists on marrying her, the public is entitled to a referendum on whether to keep the Royal family.

     

     

    They rule with our permission or not at all.

     

     

    Because the Royal Family’s main job is to provide a figurehead for the nation, and whatever you think of Her Maj, Liz has always fulfilled that obligation.

     

     

    Okay, her children may not win any prizes on Mr & Mrs, but she didn’t do the worst job in the world. They’re not all complete wasters.

     

     

    Despite their terrible taste in marriage partners, they do at least see royaling as a vocation, not a vacation, an obligation to which they were born.

     

     

    Charles should never have been fitted up with such an unsuitable marriage partner.

     

     

    But legitimising his mistress of 20 years is not on.

     

     

    We pay him to do a job, and a large part of that job is to provide a moral lead. What hope has any other family got if an adulterer and his mistress are the highest couple in the land?

     

     

    He went on telly like some soap star to admit he was unfaithful to his wife. But he’s NOT a soap star. As King, he will be Defender of the Faith and keeper of the national conscience.

     

     

    Yet he romped with Camilla practically as he was going up the aisle.

     

     

    He swore fidelity to one woman while having dirty weekends with another.

     

     

    Charles can’t make Camilla queen. Not because he loved the wrong woman, but because he LIED about it for years.

     

     

    He lied to us, and to Diana, about his love for her. And we still need a king who puts the country first.

     

     

    In a world of sleazy politicians and dirty deals, someone, somewhere, must have clean hands and high ideals.

     

     

    Charles and Camilla can never reign. Like his great-uncle Edward VIII with Wallis Simpson, he should walk away from the throne for love if he has to. And perhaps I’d think more of him if he did.

     

     

    But he is trying to have his wedding cake and eat it too, and the public just won’t wear it.

     

     

    YES

     

     

    Everyone deserves a second chance to find love says Bill Leckie

     

     

    SOMEONE in here told me last night Camilla could not be Queen because the country would not accept her.

     

     

    She told me Charles should forget her and get on with the job of preparing to be King.

     

     

    “Because it’s his duty,” she said.

     

     

    Had I not been so dumbstruck, I would have laughed out loud. Duty? It was damned duty that landed Charles – and Britain – in this mess in the first place.

     

     

    He did his duty 15 years ago when he married Diana and made us all go “awwwwwwwwwww”.

     

     

    He gave the country the fairytale wedding of the century – but it was OUR fairytale, not his nor hers.

     

     

    We wanted the pomp and ceremony, the kiss on the balcony, the tea towels and the mugs.

     

     

    What we didn’t want was to know. We didn’t want to know the awkward 30something and the shy deb were two strangers locked in a loveless sham.

     

     

    Charles is no different to many men and women in this country. He made a mess of his marriage. There is no shame in that. The shame is ours for not giving him a second chance.

     

     

    Duty? Damn duty to hell. Duty has dragged our Royal Family into the gutter and taken the country with it. And that is why Charles should now do what HE wants over Camilla, not what WE want.

     

     

    If someone told me marrying the woman I loved would cost me my job, then that’s the way it would be.

     

     

    There isn’t a job in the world – no, not even that of King – that should come between two people in love.

     

     

    And if Charles and Camilla ARE in love and DO want to marry, then that is all that matters.

     

     

    I listen to those who say that the Queen would not stand for the marriage either. If they’re right, then I despair.

     

     

    Because she may be the head of the Monarchy, but she is also a mother.

     

     

    And where her son is involved, she should be a mother first.

     

     

    I owe so much to my own mum for always letting me do what I believed was right, even when I turned out to be wrong.

     

     

    She knew – as millions of mums do – that to interfere, to stand in the way of a son or daughter’s decisions, can only lead to resentment and regret.

     

     

    I hope Her Majesty feels that way, I really do. Because it seems that too few others in this country do.

     

     

    Too many seem concerned only with how the world sees our future King – and not with how the man himself feels.

     

     

    If being King means growing old and lonely because you can’t have love, then damn being King.

     

     

    Because a man who would not give up his job for the woman he loves is no man at all.

     

    COPYRIGHT 1996 Scottish Daily Record & Sunday

  7. Paul67

     

     

    I wish someone in the MSM would make the same point over the coming days.

     

     

    Then again, we come on to this site because you don’t do lazy journalism.

     

     

    Hail! Hail!

  8. Paul67, ‘Shame’ has no stable in their dictionary. Look up derailingfordummies.com, that is their reference bible.

  9. merseycelt lmfao as the big house door slams shut on

    Shameless re-post from (end of) previous thread justified as it is, hrmm, a response to fellow poster:

     

     

    Brimmer

     

     

    Know what you mean but, of late, for me it has to be:

     

     

    1. Novo (nasty and no cultural background to use in mitigation)

     

    2. Naismith (just a horrible little hun)

     

    3. Bougherra (thought he was clever but anywhere else he would have been vilified as the thug he was)

     

    4. Lafferty (something a bit pathetic about him to prevent a higher ranking)

     

    5. Boyd (most over-rated player ever as his record SPHell proves)

     

    5. Healy (mainly for his shocking tackle on James Forrest which exposed his cultural leanings)

     

     

    Just missing out, Diouf (no explanation required-I’m sure he was born as a horrible, whingeing baby)

     

     

    HH

  10. I cannot understand how Duff and Fluffer are being allowed to continue as administrators. I’ve asked before, who has the power to remove them ?

  11. Breaking news from Pulitzer Prize winning journalist David Leggat:

     

     

    ” Supermarket giants Tesco have become the first company to feel the Rangers wrath because of its tie up with the SFA.

     

     

    Lee McCulloch was due to take part today in a publicity campaign for the SFA and their sponsors, Tesco. But McCulloch has pulled out. And Tesco have been made aware of just why no Rangers player will be co-operating with them for as long as they are tied to Regan and the SFA.

     

     

    In the eyes of the fans, Lee McCulloch is a hero!”

     

     

    Ole Lee better watch what he’s doing here. Come the summer he may be looking for a job as a trolley boy, and Tesco may not react well to Rangers legned withdrawing his custom at this point.

  12. Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on

    Lawyers for Rangers administrators have forced former owner Sir David Murray’s group to release documents between it and Craig Whyte’s lawyers over the sale of the club.

     

     

    At the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Wednesday, Duff and Phelps secured the order for the recovery of documentation under insolvency legislation.

     

     

    The administrators’counsel Susan Ower told Lord Hodge: “These documents which the administrators seek to recover are sought to facilitate the administrators investigation into the circumstances of the takeover of the company.”

     

     

    The material sought included all letters, faxes, filenotes and emails between the Murray firm, of Charlotte Square, Edinburgh, and Craig Whyte’s solicitors Collyer Bristow, who are now being sued by the administrators at the High Court in London relating to the sale of 85.3% per cent of the share capital in Rangers to Mr Whyte.

     

     

    Ms Ower said lawyers had written to the Murray company which had said it had no objection to providing documents but was concerned over confidentiality clauses. Therefore, a court order was being sought.

     

     

    She said Mr Whyte had also been informed by email over the move. Lord Hodge asked if there had been any response by Mr Whyte or others informed but was told by Ms Ower: “None at all.”

     

     

    The judge said: “It is clear that, speaking loosely, the vendors at Rangers, whose solicitors have the documents, are content that the order be made, but need a court order because of the terms of the share purchase agreement.”

     

     

    Lord Hodge said he was prepared to grant the order after a brief hearing at which only the administrators were legally represented. Mr Whyte bought the controlling shares in the Ibrox club for £1 in May 2011 before he put the club into administration in February.

     

     

    The court hearing follows a tumultuous day at Ibrox on Tuesday, where the Duff and Phelps said the Scottish Football Association’s decision to fine the club and ban it from registering players for the next 12 months could have a “very detrimental effect” on the sale of the club.

     

     

    American businessman Bill Miller and the Blue Knights consortium, led by former Rangers board member Paul Murray, are in the running to take over the reins at Ibrox.

     

     

    Mr Whyte, in an interview with STV News on Tuesday, reiterated that the club was in a financial mess before he arrived and said he has not made the situation worse since he became the owner of the former Scottish Premier League champions.

  13. merseycelt lmfao as the big house door slams shut on 25 April, 2012 at 11:28 said:

     

     

    Brimmer

     

     

    Know what you mean but, of late, for me it has to be:

     

     

    1. Novo (nasty and no cultural background to use in mitigation)

     

    2. Naismith (just a horrible little hun)

     

    3. Bougherra (thought he was clever but anywhere else he would have been vilified as the thug he was)

     

    4. Lafferty (something a bit pathetic about him to prevent a higher ranking)

     

    5. Boyd (most over-rated player ever as his record SPHell proves)

     

    5. Healy (mainly for his shocking tackle on James Forrest which exposed his cultural leanings)

     

     

    Just missing out, Diouf (no explanation required-I’m sure he was born as a horrible, whingeing baby)

     

    ————————————————————————

     

    Oh don’t get me wrong, I think this lot are despicable. But they’re a ‘gimme’ if you like. Shittaker isn’t a mouthpiece or ‘look at me’ hun. He’s a coward, an out an out coward who knows exactly what he’s doing yet more often than not gets away with it. His late tackle on Sat whilst on a yellow (ffs) after his assault got totally overlooked and this is my whole point about this tool.

     

     

    Watch it again at 4.12 as Grainger has the ball. How this isn’t pulled up is incredible. (no it’s not tbh). This guy does this so often and gets away with it.

     

    Coward.

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/17804843#asset

     

     

    brimmer

  14. Son of Warsaw on 25 April, 2012 at 11:39 said:

     

    I cannot understand how Duff and Fluffer are being allowed to continue as administrators. I’ve asked before, who has the power to remove them ?

     

    >>><<<

     

    I read somewhere on here last night that there was an upcoming court action to have them removed/replaced. Sorry,I can't remember the exact post.

  15. Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on

    Shouldn´t Rhys Mc Cabe first team Rangers squad player pull out of the U21 international tonight against Italy at Easter Rd. or is Asda only getting it tight because of their preferred colour scheme ?

     

     

    Hail Hail

  16. Will the ban on signing players still apply if a newco starts off in the third division?

  17. Brimmer,

     

     

    I have long hated Whittaker, beacuse as you rughtly point out he is a coward.

     

     

    he often makes these type of tackles (how the hell he wasnt sent off for that challenge at the weekend when the ref was 5 yards away from it at most!!??), but when you get it up him he’s off his marks like Bolt.

     

     

    Classic happy to give it, but canny take it player.

     

     

    Cheating cowardly snake that he is…….and theyve had plenty over the years.

     

     

    HAIL! HAIL!

     

    Token

  18. forgive me but on route to Germany today and bought all the papers for a wee chuckle on the plane

     

     

    its hilarious.

     

     

    sally demanding the faceless secretive panel are named.

     

     

    they can’t be stonecutters then.

     

     

     

    tal tal tal

  19. Steinreignedsupreme on

    The Huns are even more hilarious than usual at the moment. I’m enjoying the ole ‘it’s not the fault of the fans, it was down to the actions of one man’ routine, and the ‘We are suffering through no fault of our own’ sketch.

     

     

    Wolves fans could maybe try these excuses to avoid watching Championship football next season.

     

     

    Then there’s the ole classic ‘they are sticking the boot into the club while we are down’ – like it is anyone else’s fault other than their own that they are in this position.

     

     

    But my new favourite is ‘why did the SFA not conduct a fit and proper persons test on Craig Whyte when his shady business practices were revealed on a TV documentary last year?’

     

     

    They have a point. We all remember the Huns were so concerned with this issue they organised a protest and suggested a boycott, as well as backing a ban on the BBC for, erm, well … ‘mudslinging towards Craig Whyte and having an anti-Rangers agenda.

     

     

    There are some things I will miss when they are gone…

  20. Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on

    By JOHN HARTSON

     

    Published: Today at 00:05

     

    THE SFA has hammered Rangers and quite rightly so.

     

     

     

    The way I see it, that club deserves everything it gets.

     

     

    They welcomed Craig Whyte in the first place.

     

     

    No one else.

     

     

    They put their trust in a man who was clearly intent on bringing the club down.

     

     

    No one else.

     

     

    Now they should accept the punishment that’s been dished out to them.

     

     

    No one else.

     

     

    Whyte will be sitting, laughing up his sleeve like a Bond villain, of course he will.

     

     

    The sanctions against him are nothing more than a slap on the wrist, like he’s a naughty child.

     

     

    And he should hang his head in shame for the way he has conducted himself for the last few months.

     

     

    I think he’s a despicable piece of work.

     

     

    The way he’s acted is nothing short of disgraceful.

     

     

    Just don’t try and tell me Rangers as a club are blameless in all this. They’re not.

     

     

    The players are. So too are the staff behind the scenes. They’ve done absolutely nothing wrong and have every right to be disgusted by the turn of events.

     

     

    But as a club, as a business, Rangers cannot simply wash their hands of this and say Whyte has nothing whatsoever to do with them.

     

     

    I can still remember the day he walked up Edmiston Drive for the very first time.

     

     

    Whyte was treated like the long-awaited saviour. The supporters virtually queued up to pat him on the back on his way through the door.

     

     

    Since then he’s wreaked havoc with a knowing smile on his face.

     

     

    Even after the SFA ruling he scoffed and insisted there was no way he would be paying the £200,000 fine.

     

     

    It’s like he’s untouchable and couldn’t care less what people think of him, what they want to do with him. He has been like that from day one.

     

     

    But where were the supporters’ groups back then?

     

     

    Where was the outcry from the fans in the stands?

     

     

    The truth is there wasn’t one because virtually every supporter wanted to believe Whyte was the real deal.

     

     

    Even when it emerged he had sold off future season tickets, they still said it was a press agenda against their club.

     

     

    Well, it’s too late now to start saying he’s not on their side. While he’s got 85.3 per cent of shares he IS Rangers. End of.

     

     

    What you can’t argue against is that these sanctions will have huge consequences.

     

     

    Let’s be clear on this.

     

     

    Rangers were in severe danger of losing their best players this summer anyway, given how things are at Ibrox.

     

     

    Their biggest earners all accepted massive wage cuts on the proviso they could leave the club for next to nothing at the end of the season.

     

     

    They were quite right. They were hailed as heroes for taking reduced deals, but I said at the time they’d done well out of the sorry situation.

     

     

    They will have known they held all the cards if they were available for vastly-reduced fees come the end of May.

     

     

    I read in these pages this week that the Blue Knights consortium hoped to re-write those contracts.

     

     

    Paul Murray clearly recognised the situation. He could see the club was in real danger of losing players for a fraction of what they were actually worth.

     

     

    But now that the SFA have hammered Rangers, and hit them with a 12-month signing ban, Murray’s chances of negotiating with those players have just become slimmer than Kate Moss.

     

     

    Again I don’t think you could blame the players. They’re well within their rights to be thinking about their own situation right now. There is always natural wastage at the end of every season. But if Rangers cannot sign anyone to replace those who leave, what are they going to be left with?

     

     

    A middle of the table, bog-standard squad, that’s what.

     

     

    It’s bleak. It doesn’t look good.

     

     

    Celtic are fighting fit and, chances are, they’ll sign two or three quality players in the summer. They’re only going to get stronger while Rangers fall to their knees.

     

     

    Clubs in the Premiership will be hovering over Ibrox like vultures, ready to swoop.

     

     

    It’s totally understandable if Allan McGregor. Steven Naismith or Steve Davis look at that and think they’re better off elsewhere.

     

     

    Kyle Lafferty looks like he’s already made his mind up.

     

     

    His bust-up with Ally McCoist shows there are cracks in the dressing room. But that was always the danger.

     

     

    Ally has done his best to keep things together, but when so many things are going against the club, something had to give.

     

     

    But there’s too much stacked against him now.

     

     

    I just wonder where it’s all going to end.

     

     

    For Rangers and for Whyte.

     

     

    He should be brought to court for what he’s done. He should be brought to justice.

     

     

    But while he should be jailed, Rangers as a club don’t deserve to get off scot-free.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 32