Looks like slimy quim's got the standard issue hate blinkers on

Henrik - to be honest I've never heard of the guy. But, sounds like he is one of Whyte's sidekicks so part of the crime.

Mearns.

I appreciate your honesty.

I agree the SFA are farcical and that the sanctions are too harsh. My point is that there were other people who did know about Whyte's dealings, not good Rangers men like Greig, but the people Whyte brought in himself, who also had a responsibility.

Mearns

I think I'll go for a wee lie doon after your masterful put-down.

Pointed out the obvious flaws = a hater.

Grow a pair ya

ChrisGraham76



Ok now I’m really confused. The directors were “misled and deceived” but “must have known”. There is that phrase, “must have known”. Also they apparently “did nothing to bring it to the attention of the public”. You mean apart from resigning and telling every media outlet who covered it that is was down to being excluded from corporate governance? You really could not make this up. We know the SFA were aware of issues with Whyte because they tried to get information from him in October.

+++

That's his synopsis of what the SFA's ruling was on the misconduct charge.

Read what's written and you tell me if that's what conclusions you draw!!!!

TCD.

I don't know why he fails to mention the director Betts, who Whyte appointed that was paid £160,000 from when Whyte took over until this January. It turns out that this guy ran a company, Primary Asset Finance, whose website boasted of providing “hassle-free solutions” and had a section titled “HMRC Arrears/Problems. Now the company who sponsored Betts' company was a certain "Close Brothers", who have a board member, Ray Greenshields, who is also chairman of Octopus Investments, who own Ticketus.

Where was this £160,000 paid from? Well, it was paid from the same Collyer Bristow account that held the money Whyte used to buy the club. A little too convenient, if you ask me.

I wonder if this guy who was paid £160,000 from a Collyer Bristow account which Whyte used to buy the club, who has links to Ticketus "must have known".?

In his speech Lord Reid said:

“Where a limited company is the employer difficult questions do arise in

a wide variety of circumstances in deciding which of its officers or servants is to be identified with thecompany so that his guilt is the guilt of the company.I must start by considering the nature of the personality which by a fiction the lawattributes to a corporation.

A living person has a mind which can have knowledgeor intention or be negligent and he has handsto carry out his intentions. Acorporation has none of these: it must actthrough living persons, though not always one or the same person. Thenthe person who acts is not speaking or acting for the company. He isacting as the company and his mind which directshis acts is the mind ofthe company.There is no question of the company beingvicariouslyliable. He is not acting as a servant, representative, agent or delegate.Heis an embodiment of the company or, one could say, he hears and speaksthrough the persona of the company, within his appropriate sphere, and hismind is the mind of the company. If it is a guilty mind then that guilt isthe guilt of the company

.It must be a question of law whether, once thefacts have been



ascertained, a person in doing particular things is to beregarded as the company



or merely as the company's servant or agent.

Inthat case any liability of the



company can only be a statutory or vicariousliability.



In

Leonard'sCarrying Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co.

[1915] AC 705the question was



whether damage had occurred without the actual fault or " privity " of the owner of a ship. The owners were a company. The fault was that of the registered managingowner who managed the ship on behalf of the owners and it was held that thecompany could not dissociate itself from him so as to say that there was no actualfault or privity on the part of the company. Lord Haldane L.C. said at page 713:"

For if Mr. Leonard was the directing mind of the company, then his action must,unless a corporation is not to be liable at all, have been an action which was theaction of the company itself within the meaning of section 502

"... It must be uponthe true construction of that section in such a case as the present one that the faultor privity is the fault or privity of somebody who is not merely a servant or agentfor whom the company is liable upon the footing

respondent superior,

butsomebody for whom the company is liable because his action is the very action of the company itself."'Reference is frequently made to the judgment of Lord Denning in

BoltonEngineering) Co.

v.

Graham

[1957] 1QB 159. He said " A company may in many ways



be likened to a human body. It has a brain and nerve centre which controls what itdoes. It also has hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directionsfrom the centre. Some of the people in the company are mere servants and agentswho arenothing more than hands to do the work and cannot be said to representthe mind or will. Others are directors and managers who represent the directingmind and will of the company, and control what it does. The state of mind of thesemanagers is the state of mind of the company and is treated by the law as such."In his submission Mr McLaughlin on behalf of Rangers FC accepted, as he wasbound to do, that the case of

Tesco Supermarkets Limited v Nattrass

did indeed



represent the law in relation to the issue of the liability of a company for theactions of a director or manager whose position and conduct made him the

“directing mind and will” of the company. He accepted that any exceptions which

might in another case arise from the limited nature of any authority held by anindividual whose conduct was in issue did not apply in the present case.




































45

In the present case in relation to the liability of Rangers FC for actions which couldbe proved in evidence to have been carried out directly or under the directinstructions of Mr Craig Whyte, Mr McLaughlin sought to find a point of distinctionwhich would avoid the consequences of the application of the principle clearlyexplained in the case of

Tesco Supermarkets Limited v Nattrass

. He was unable to



do so.In light of the Tribunal finding in fact that during the period from 6 May 2011 until

14 February 2012 Mr Craig Whyte was the “directing mind and will” of Rangers FC,

and that he had deliberately engaged in a programme of non payment of taxes due

to HMRC, the Tribunal was bound in law to hold that Mr Craig Whyte’s culpable

acts and breaches of Disciplinary Rules were to be regarded, where it were allegedagainst the company, as culpable acts and breaches of the Disciplinary Rules byRangers FC for which it must be held liable.The liability of Rangers FC being sufficiently established by application of theidentification principle explained in

Tesco Supermarkets Limited v Nattrass

it was



unnecessary for the Tribunal to go further. The Tribunal was nonetheless clear in itsassessment of the evidence and in the inferences that it was entitled to draw fromfacts established on the evidence that beyond the identification principle the actsand omissions of directors and senior managers of Rangers FC between 6 May 2011and 6 March 2012 were such as to prove on a balance of probabilities that certaindirectors and / or senior managers were entirely aware that Mr Craig Whyte, adirector of Rangers FC was engaged in a deliberate programme of non payment of taxes, non-cooperation with and frustration of the attempts of the auditorsappointed by Rangers FC to carry out the annual inspection of the books of accountand preparation of the statutory annual accounts which required to be lodged by31 December 2011, and non- cooperation with and frustration of the attempts byKen Olverman the Financial Controller to be allowed to access and distributeinformation which was necessary for the preparation of briefings and periodicreports and management accounts. These matters all frustrated preparation of theannual accounts and prevented the holding of the annual general meeting whichrequired to be held by 1 January 2012. From May 2011 Mr David King was awarethat he was being excluded from the governance of the company and he appears tohave done little about it except repeat his demands to Mr Olverman and Mr CraigWhyte for information.There was no information about any other steps he took as director when matterswere plainly out of the control of the Board and information and accounts werekept secret from the Board. Similarly, Mr John McClelland and Mr John Greigresigned in October because they knew that they were being excluded andmarginalised at the same time as they had great concerns for the governance of Rangers FC and were deeply suspicious of Mr Craig Whyte before and after hisacquisition of the majority shareholding from MIHL. Other than resignation therewas no eveidence that either of these directors took any steps with any person orauthority to do anything about what they knew was happening. Criticism might belevelled at these directors and others. Mr Olverman as Financial Controlleroccupied a very senior role within Rangers FC and as a matter of admission he knewof the non payment of taxes and the somewhat strange practices and secrecywhich was the deliberate policy advanced by Mr Craig Whyte. Though it was nopart in the matter before us, and did not impact on our decision on the complaintswhich were before us, Mr Ken Olverman was also aware of an apparently unusualtransaction involving Ticketus which had a substantial significance in the exercise of any fiduciary duty which he, as a senior officer of the company, owed towards thecompany, rather than owed towards Mr Craig Whyte.






+++++

Did ye bother reading any of the above, Chris?

Irrelevant

I wonder if this guy who was paid £160,000 from a Collyer Bristow account which Whyte used to buy the club, who has links to Ticketus "must have known".?

===

That is the point Henk

Whytes folk new

Rangers folk didnt

Now as Chris says ignorance is not an excuse but is it not a mitigating factor?

None of which explains why the SFA chose to ignore all the signs

Henrik,

In 9 months we're to believe that only Whyte knew that the tax wasn't being paig

In saying that, the previous regime kept it quiet for a decade

TCD

WHY NOT TAKE IT UP WITH CHRIS?

Duke, but Phil Betts was also a director and hence had the same responsibility as Greig and McLelland. The difference is Greig and McLelland were oblivious to Whyte's dealings, but Betts wasn't. Therefore, he as a director didn't do anything.

Whytes folk new

Rangers folk didnt

+++



One in the same as far as the SFA are concerned

What about Ellis?

It would help if the media, would actually give us more information on what Ellis gained from this whole scenario? The missing money from the Collyer Bristow account is still unexplained, apart from the £18m to Lloyds and the £160,000 to Betts.

As Lord Reid has said...Captain sinks ship, company is charged

Henk

I doubt they know.

You doubt who know?

Phil Bett's must have known, he was paid £5,000 a week from the Collyer Bristow account which the Ticketus money was from. He was also a director of Whyte's previous company which went into administration with debts to creditors of £3m. I'd be surprised if he didn't know what Whyte was up to, likewise with Ellis. I can say that I think Greig and Mclleland were oblivious, but the people that were appointed by Whyte himself, I very much doubt it.

Despite the SFA stating that McLelland and Greig didn't know what Whyte was up to it didn't stop the lazy tabloid media running with the scenario that McLelkand and Greig knew but walked away and done nothing.

Despite the SFA stating that McLelland and Greig didn't know what Whyte was up to it didn't stop the lazy tabloid media running with the scenario that McLelkand and Greig knew but walked away and done nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.

But did you expect anything less?

Never heard if this guy - who is he ? How many wars has he covered ? Is he even a social worker ?

If ye cannae do the crime...............

comment by Henrik's_Forehead-Twists and Turns Tommy Burns. (U6171)
posted 13 seconds ago
You doubt who know?

Phil Bett's must have known, he was paid £5,000 a week from the Collyer Bristow account which the Ticketus money was from. He was also a director of Whyte's previous company which went into administration with debts to creditors of £3m. I'd be surprised if he didn't know what Whyte was up to, likewise with Ellis. I can say that I think Greig and Mclleland were oblivious, but the people that were appointed by Whyte himself, I very much doubt it.

===

and I think that is the point.

Whytes people must have known.

They were all in it together
They all gained

They all kept it quiet.

Now none of that exempts Rangers as they were Rangers..

The point is it does create mitigating circumstances.

Chris is a Rangers man obviously he will paint a picture that reduces (in his view) the culpability.

I would hope these points are made at the appeal then its up to them.

Time

I would hope these points are made at the appeal then its up to them.

+++

You would hope they are not...the bam can't quote or interpret a paragraph properly

"the bam can't quote or interpret a paragraph properly"


Mwwwahahahahahahahahahahaha

did you take it up with him TCD?

No, Duke...

I don't want to blow your defence apart before Wednesday