The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Remember this http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-crisis-charles-green-gives-5011017

Green buys the club with ?5m of somebodies money and leave with ?11m in his sky rocket.  ?40m to win 4th and 3rd tier of scottish football.  I wonder if the ?18m claimed to still be in the Ibrox coffers by Green is the same ?18m King claims to have already spent as part of his kids inheritence?

[DETTY29]

@jamesdoleman 12m12 minutes ago

 

 

Findlay "this is his (Johnson's) revisionist view of what happened in 2011..it was nonsense then and nonsense later"

 

____________________________

 

Think Findlay has missed a trick here.

 

'Nonsense then, nonsense now, nonsense forever'

[swavkav]

So rangers hid the fact that they had loans from ticketus to pay for Jellyfish transfer

Edited May 3, 2017 by swavkav

[BelgeJambo]

So rangers hid the fact that they had loans from ticketus to pay for Jellyfish transfer

Swavkav - can't quite think why, but you should post much more often

[world_3]

I worked for BoS and HBOS  until three weeks before the takeover by Lloyds. In my opinion it was BoS that was largely responsible for the collapse of HBOS through the reckless lending of its Corporate Banking division, e.g. ?700m to Murray group.  Halifax wasn't blameless either though their 100%+ mortgage lending decisions. However, I saw the mortgages being more the victim of the financial crash, rather than the trigger. When property prices started to fall and negative equity became a big issue that part of the business went into a downward spiral.

 

The corporate governance of HBOS also left a lost to be desired and the blame for much of that lies with former HBOS chief James Crosby, who was one of Gordon Brown's favoured bankers.  He was knighted in 2006 for his services to banking, then appointed to the FSA while still Chief Exec of the bank, a clear conflict of interest. Crosby's groomed successor, Andy Hornby, was out his depth as a banker, having come from ASDA.

 

BOS was a stable and prudent bank before the merger with Halifax in 2001, but had started to lose its way once Gavin Masterton took the helm after Sir Bruce Pattullo retired around 1998

 

The banks and the building societies were/are all scum, regardless of their particular circumstances during the crash - their whole modus operandi is selling mortgages at multiple times the build value of the property, therefore creaming off for decades of the buyer's life the fruits of their hard labour. The biggest con ever, aided and abetted by their tame politician slaves in the Tory,  Labour and Liberal Parties.

[Spellczech]

This is spot on. Bank of Scotland were almost as bank as Anglo Irish in their corporate deals, taking on corporate lending no one else would touch to grow the balance sheet as rapidly as possible.

Yep BoS gambled their future on the Natwest takeover. It was either eat or be eaten. RBS gazumped them, forcing BoS to tie up with Halifax. Being the smaller banking side of a Building Society wasn't sexy enough so they used Halifax's safe as houses balance sheet to start really lending...Ironically David Murray went into Rangers FC and then Commercial Real Estate because metals wasn't sexy enough for him...

[Mikey1874]

Well it's certainly looking like a car crash in ultra slow motion.

 

If Rangers actually had any influence they would be getting this trial stopped

[buzzbomb1958]

Sevco directors will be watching this unfold knowing every new day means more stones being overturned and secrets being uncovered,remember the lying kings name still has to come up ,just upped my shares in popcorn

[Spellczech]

You were very wise (or lucky) then. Yes, they had already plummeted, in line with other banking shares, to around 280 pence a share, but after the disastrous HBOS acquisition they lost most of their remaining value and only now are dividends being paid again. The directors and shareholders were seriously misled about the true nature of the business they were taking on. Sound familiar?

The big mistake small investors make is believing that directors always make decisions that are in shareholders interests. Bonuses drive short-termism and short-termism is in the interests of investors/speculators, not long-term investors/shareholders. Short- and Long-term goals are often distinct and often contrary. 

[Footballfirst]

I think that Alastair Johnston's appearance in the witness box (assuming he is called) could be car crash TV (if it was filmed ).

 

From a BBC article on today's proceedings

 

The trial was later told of a draft letter written by Alastair Johnston, who was then chairman of Rangers, for Mr Shanks in January 2011.

In the letter, Johnston claimed the Rangers board were "masquerading as directors", effectively "stooges" for the "objective" of the bank.

He then insisted Lloyds wanted to "drain every single penny out of the club... to the extent Rangers as a thriving concern would be throttled into submission".

The then chairman spoke of "carnage" and referred to the "impoverished remains" of the club.

He also described the "head count" of the playing squad as "dangerously under water".

The banker told the court he did not remember receiving the letter.

But, Mr Findlay asked: "The approach of Alastair Johnston was 'this was everybody's fault, but mine'?"

Mr Shanks: "That is a fair assessment."

The QC suggested Johnston had been presiding over a "financial disaster".

Mr Shanks said the club had been in "difficult circumstances", but that it was "still operating".

[The Comedian]

 

reading Downfall by Phil MacGiollBhain, great read and truly shows up just what was happening at Rangers 1872 prior to 14th Feb. all the stuff coming from the court case was reported \ blogged by Phil and the media chose to ignore it and feed the poor bears the narrative that a saviour was coming over the horizon!!!!!

 

must read for all football fans!!!

 

 

 

Imagine lining that oddballs pockets.

 

[Justin Z]

Imagine lining that oddballs pockets.

 

 

Meh, you can buy it used for 1p on Amazon.

[Hazzaru]

Imagine lining that oddballs pockets.

 

Maybe you should read it first then offer up comment of the author? Think Phil was instrumental in bringing issues surrounding The Rangers to the forefront whilst the Level 5 PR machine tried to bury the truth.

 

Look at what?s coming out in court, Phil had reported this at the time and now the truth is out whilst Chris and Keith played along with the sham that Rangers wanted everyone to believe including the SFA!

 

I?ll give you my copy for free once I?m finished if you like?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Maybe you should read it first then offer up comment of the author? Think Phil was instrumental in bringing issues surrounding The Rangers to the forefront whilst the Level 5 PR machine tried to bury the truth.

 

Look at what?s coming out in court, Phil had reported this at the time and now the truth is out whilst Chris and Keith played along with the sham that Rangers wanted everyone to believe including the SFA!

 

I?ll give you my copy for free once I?m finished if you like?

Inaccurate. Rangers Tax Case blog was the main expose. Level 5 didn't exist at that time.

[CollyWolly]

Well it's certainly looking like a car crash in ultra slow motion.

 

If Rangers actually had any influence they would be getting this trial stopped

I think thats partly why Donald Findlay is involved. He'll be desperate to get a 'no case to answer' verdict at the end of the prosecution case because if he doesn't, the prosecution evidence is going to look pretty mundane compared to the explosive stuff Findlay will have to lead to get his client out of the hole.

 

There is a Rangers man in the court in a key position of influence over what comes out and what doesnt. That's not a coincidence IMO.In fact its bordering on conflict of interest.

Edited May 4, 2017 by CollyWolly

[...a bit disco]

Dave King was recently in the country as he was a potential witness but has apparently been told hes is no longer required, according to reports.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Inaccurate. Rangers Tax Case blog was the main expose. Level 5 didn't exist at that time.

 

All true but the BBC and the MSM all towed the party line on reporting anything coming out of Ibrox, regardless of what bampot was in charge of that regime. 

 

THE MSM and more so their fans cannot seperate that an attack on an individial is not an attack on the whole, they circle the wagons and the media turn their bow and arrows (or should that be bows and arrows..plural) outwards.   The SFA just go lalalalalala not listening.  Not they have taken a key player in the MSM  a bully and a bampot (if you listened to his show) who Claimed to be an Airdire fan, yet when Deadco killed his club, what did he do set up a PR business spowting all kinds of sheesh like that mad Iraqi guy on "T" Telly.   Traynor is now a Master Internet Bampot working for the head of the snake, and not in the best interest of the club, its shareholders, nor its fans.  In fact Trainer is like Anne Frank taking over as Reich Minister for Propaganda from Joshep Goebbels.

 

It took keyboard warriors to keep digging and digging to make these people accountable,  otherwise all we would here is Scottish Football needs a strong Rangers,  and Armageddon looms, the rest of us should just doth thy caps, stare at our shoes and get on with keeping the status quo. 

 

These exposes should have been done by the media...publish and be damned......cowards all of them

[Mikey1874]

Today's new witness is Michael McGill, chartered accountant, insolvency specialist.

 

Have started by talking about the difference between administration and liquidation.

 

He is an (ex?) director of Murray International Holdings

Edited May 4, 2017 by Mikey1874

[Unknown user]

Maybe you should read it first then offer up comment of the author? Think Phil was instrumental in bringing issues surrounding The Rangers to the forefront whilst the Level 5 PR machine tried to bury the truth.

 

Look at what?s coming out in court, Phil had reported this at the time and now the truth is out whilst Chris and Keith played along with the sham that Rangers wanted everyone to believe including the SFA!

 

I?ll give you my copy for free once I?m finished if you like?

Hmm

[DETTY29]

Today's new witness is Michael McGill, chartered accountant, insolvency specialist.

 

Have started by talking about the difference between administration and liquidation.

 

He is an (ex?) director of Murray International Holdings

He was MG Finance Director for years and possibly Murray's closest confidant at one point.

 

He was the MG (or whatever subsidiary) signature to the Whyte / Rangers takeover.

 

This will be very interesting. Edit - once Findlay starts on him.

Edited May 4, 2017 by DETTY29

[Mikey1874]

It's still curious to me as an outsider how little interest there was at buying Rangers at all the different stages.

[Don Dan]

Sharks always sniffing around

 

Two individuals introduced by the brother of an English premier league manager, said they had ?50m, proof of funds letter "fraudulent"Hi

[jambovambo]

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago

 

 

A bid for Rangers from a Lithuanian bank was rejected as there were fears it was linked to money laundering and organised crime

 

[Don Dan]

Vlad!!!!!!!!?

 

 

 

 

1m

James Doleman @jamesdoleman

A bid for Rangers from a Lithuanian bank was rejected as there were fears it was linked to money laundering and organised crime

 

 

 

 

,

[Don Dan]

They mean business

 

 

1m

James Doleman @jamesdoleman

McGill says has met Craig Whyte, asked by the Advocate Depute he points at him in the dock sitting between two security officers.

[Mikey1874]

Andrew Ellis introduced Whyte to Rangers

[buzzbomb1958]

 

Another uncomfortable truth for ra peepul [emoji4]

KAHBOOM

[269miles]

Vlad!!!!!!!!?

 

 

 

 

1m

James Doleman @jamesdoleman

A bid for Rangers from a Lithuanian bank was rejected as there were fears it was linked to money laundering and organised crime

 

 

 

 

,

This could be the same guy who tried to buy Portsmouth. He was investigated by the Bank of England , who told the FA he was using a Lith bank as his own piggy bank. Takeover bid was rejected. 

[269miles]

It's still curious to me as an outsider how little interest there was at buying Rangers at all the different stages.

It's quite simple. Even if you ignore all the relatively recent "debts" , eg wee & big tax case and the  tax debts run up by Whyte close to the crash, Rangers had been running at a loss since the day SDM took over. I recall at one point debts of ?48 million  (I think it climbed even higher) which was only affordable on a   completely ludicrously over valued Ibrox which apparently was an asset worth ?75 million.  Rangers total debts to the  banks totalled over ?100 million - and that doesn't include the scam where SDM , in one season alone, used MIH to underwrite a ?40 odd million share float that ra peepul were not interested in. 

 

Rangers had been effectively bankrupt for years . SDM used MIH money to "hide" it. 

 

Chuck in the big tax case (that Rangers had already tried to settle with  ?10 million offer to HMRC ) and you begin to see that there was no hope of finding  buyer. 

[Paolo]

 

Another uncomfortable truth for ra peepul [emoji4]

'Latter is end of it'.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Paolo

[269miles]

'Latter is end of it'.

 

The company dies but the "club" lives on , kinda like dying and your soul going to the afterlife of the SFA to be reincarnated in the lower divisions. I think that's how theSFA/SPFL/weegia interpret it. 

 

If the dalai lama supported a football club it would be Sevco.

[Don Dan]

McGill says Rangers could not gain a consumer credit licence to take direct debit payments "because of one of the directors"

 

 

King?

[Paolo]

The company dies but the "club" lives on , kinda like dying and your soul going to the afterlife of the SFA to be reincarnated in the lower divisions. I think that's how theSFA/SPFL/weegia interpret it.

 

If the dalai lama supported a football club it would be Sevco.

Kind of like, if your pet dog dies. You get another one, and give it the dead one's colllar. It is the same dog.

[Strachsuit]

This could be the same guy who tried to buy Portsmouth. He was investigated by the Bank of England , who told the FA he was using a Lith bank as his own piggy bank. Takeover bid was rejected. 

 

It was Andrew Ellis' bid for club. He was using Lith bank but they had been known for money laundering. Bank's name not revealed in court.

[Don Dan]

James Doleman @jamesdoleman

McGill says "At all times My Whyte assured us the funds were coming from his personal resources" says these were verbal assurances not email.

 

But Whyte was never asked to prove his personal funds.

[The Gasman]

All true but the BBC and the MSM all towed the party line on reporting anything coming out of Ibrox, regardless of what bampot was in charge of that regime.....

 

....These exposes should have been done by the media...publish and be damned......cowards all of them

To be fair, while you're correct, there were a couple of notable exceptions - Alex Thompson and Private Eye did keep running the truth.

[Don Dan]

James Doleman @jamesdoleman

"It was a ?27.5m transaction, not a pound" McGill tells the court

#WhyteTrial

 

James Doleman @jamesdoleman

McGill says Murray Group gave up payment for it's shares "in return for investment in the club"

[CollyWolly]

It was Andrew Ellis' bid for club. He was using Lith bank but they had been known for money laundering. Bank's name not revealed in court.

The Ellis bid was backed by sources in Qatar and Dubai according to MSM sources at the time. The guy wo owned Leeds Utd was also involved as a backer. I think they upset Walter Smith and Johnson somewhere along the line close to the conclusion point and the deal fell apart.

[Don Dan]

James Doleman @jamesdoleman

McGill says he had no knowledge Whyte was using 3 years of future season ticket income to finance purchase.

 

 

Why not? Was it take the money and say nothing of the real state Rangers were in.

[269miles]

It was Andrew Ellis' bid for club. He was using Lith bank but they had been known for money laundering. Bank's name not revealed in court.

Amazing the weegia wasn't all over that one. 

[269miles]

James Doleman @jamesdoleman

McGill says he had no knowledge Whyte was using 3 years of future season ticket income to finance purchase.

 

 

Why not? Was it take the money and say nothing of the real state Rangers were in.

Let's see what Ticketus say - how did Rangers previously do business with Ticketus ?

[Mikey1874]

So who was the Director that led to Rangers not being able to "gain a consumer credit license to take direct debit payments"

[Footballfirst]

So who was the Director that led to Rangers not being able to "gain a consumer credit license to take direct debit payments"

 

Can I make a "glib" guess?

[corryjambo]

FF, you are "shameless" making such a guess.

[Hagar the Horrible]

To be fair, while you're correct, there were a couple of notable exceptions - Alex Thompson and Private Eye did keep running the truth.

Gas I was only refering to the SMSM  which at the time and still is the biggest scandal to hit football, but it has been played down to a minor dispute.  If this had been any other club, it would be sensational,  Look at the Juve scandal, the media did not hold back or tow the line, Juve took their medicine.

 

God bless AT and Ian Hislop

[Hagar the Horrible]

So who was the Director that led to Rangers not being able to "gain a consumer credit license to take direct debit payments"

I think we can all guess, but its a shame the person was not named?  that would really open another pandoras box

[Mikey1874]

I think we can all guess, but its a shame the person was not named? that would really open another pandoras box

Not named yet

[Hagar the Horrible]

Andrew Ellis take on from 2012, another duped rich guy, with no access to the internet?????

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9103980/Rangers-in-administration-I-was-duped-by-Craig-Whyte-says-director-Andrew-Ellis.html

[Spellczech]

All this stuff seems like an effort to muddy the waters rather than clarify it.

 

As seller of a business you are under no responsibility to conduct due diligence. It has been clear since the day Murray announced that Rangers were for sale and HBOS put a director on the board that the bank was pushing MIH to divest Rangers. The ?4m reduced to ?1 "for investment in the team" is a scam. Rangers had liabilities in excess of their assets and were never worth ?4m at this time. The banker's talk of it being a ?27m deal is similar nonsense. The only things keeping Rangers heads above water were MIH interco loans and HBOS overdraft, both of which could not be extended.

 

It is the buyer who does due diligence to try to uncover exactly what he is buying. As far as Whyte was concerned the unquantified Big Tax Case liability estimated at somewhere around ?80m should have scared him off as it did all other serious potential bids. Why Whyte thought he could find a way to ring-fence or make this potential liability disappear by any means other than winning in court, when Murray couldn't even get settlement of the Small Tax Case, I do not know...

 

It is clear as it has always been clear, that HBOS and by extension MIH and the Rangers directors did not care one jot whether Whyte had the money to buy Rangers and made no more than basic attempts to find out if he did. They were more than happy to rely on verbal statements about where the money was coming from, and unsigned letters saying how much was held on account by Whyte's lawyers, because the deal was for ?1.

 

Here is the bit I do not understand: If the deal was indeed for ?4m or ?27m then the buyer does have a responsibility to ensure that the funds are available. Murray and the bank seem to be maintaining that the deal value was higher than ?1....Why? This puts the onus on Rangers directors and it was clearly not done satisfactorily...I wonder if it is the Rangers directors - Bain, Johnston etc who will be the fall guys here, and Whyte may just get away with it, as will Murray...This would explain why Rangers man Donald Findlay is defending Whyte. Owners walk,  employees carry the can?

[Mikey1874]

All this stuff seems like an effort to muddy the waters rather than clarify it.

 

As seller of a business you are under no responsibility to conduct due diligence. It has been clear since the day Murray announced that Rangers were for sale and HBOS put a director on the board that the bank was pushing MIH to divest Rangers. The ?4m reduced to ?1 "for investment in the team" is a scam. Rangers had liabilities in excess of their assets and were never worth ?4m at this time. The banker's talk of it being a ?27m deal is similar nonsense. The only things keeping Rangers heads above water were MIH interco loans and HBOS overdraft, both of which could not be extended.

 

It is the buyer who does due diligence to try to uncover exactly what he is buying. As far as Whyte was concerned the unquantified Big Tax Case liability estimated at somewhere around ?80m should have scared him off as it did all other serious potential bids. Why Whyte thought he could find a way to ring-fence or make this potential liability disappear by any means other than winning in court, when Murray couldn't even get settlement of the Small Tax Case, I do not know...

 

It is clear as it has always been clear, that HBOS and by extension MIH and the Rangers directors did not care one jot whether Whyte had the money to buy Rangers and made no more than basic attempts to find out if he did. They were more than happy to rely on verbal statements about where the money was coming from, and unsigned letters saying how much was held on account by Whyte's lawyers, because the deal was for ?1.

 

Here is the bit I do not understand: If the deal was indeed for ?4m or ?27m then the buyer does have a responsibility to ensure that the funds are available. Murray and the bank seem to be maintaining that the deal value was higher than ?1....Why? This puts the onus on Rangers directors and it was clearly not done satisfactorily...I wonder if it is the Rangers directors - Bain, Johnston etc who will be the fall guys here, and Whyte may just get away with it, as will Murray...This would explain why Rangers man Donald Findlay is defending Whyte. Owners walk, employees carry the can?

"Get away with"

 

I think I see your point in terms of the wider judgement on Rangers and Murray but only Craig Whyte is on trial here