jambovambo Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 25m25 minutes ago Minutes: "Assuming the club survives 90 days after the tribunal decision" Whyte would waive Lloyd's debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Was th James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 25m25 minutes ago Minutes: "Assuming the club survives 90 days after the tribunal decision" Whyte would waive Lloyd's debt Was that the FTT? I am sure Whyte wanted it to fail so as to asset strip the company, why else buy a club that is ?18m in debt, needs another ?20m in investment and had a Small tax debt of ?5m + interest as well as the big tax debt of a third world country, the only income was season tickets but the next ?50m of that was to repay Ticketus, who lent the money with out any security????? all this was reported at the time, so it would be good if his rationale and the truth comes out? The Truth behind SDM selling the club The truth behind Whytes motives for buying this dead horse Further evidence behind Greens involvementcomes to light in all of this? And with King being taken to court over TAB? all of the owners proving charlatans as well as being proper Rangurz men???? But the biggest answer to the biggest question....wherz ra deeds????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorgieMIlls Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I always thought his plan was based on qualifying for the champions league and securing the ?25million give or take. Fortunately Kaunus turned them over!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorgieMIlls Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I always thought his plan was based on qualifying for the champions league and securing the ?25million give or take. Fortunately Kaunus turned them over!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ1984 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I always thought his plan was based on qualifying for the champions league and securing the ?25million give or take. Fortunately Kaunus turned them over!! Think it was Malmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paulo Sergio Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Think it was Malmo. It was Vladimir's FBK Kaunas who stuck the knife in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I always thought his plan was based on qualifying for the champions league and securing the ?25million give or take. Fortunately Kaunus turned them over!! Kaunus was the 2008/9 season, It was malmo and then Maribor at the Craig whyte failover, sorry takeover 2011/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Think it was Malmo.Malmo turned over #ibs. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. I think it was #ibs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Will David Murray be questioned too in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Our feeder team definitely didn't do the huns any favours knocking them out that year. You could argue they started what we have seen today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Our feeder team definitely didn't do the huns any favours knocking them out that year. You could argue they started what we have seen today. That and us depriving them of a second-place finish the year before. That Romanov, eh? What a man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 That and us depriving them of a second-place finish the year before. That Romanov, eh? What a man! I'd forgot about that. That's potentially tens of millions of pounds they might have been able to get their hands on depending on how successful they were (they were decent in Europe around this period) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ1984 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Malmo turned over #ibs. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. I think it was #ibs. Wasn't it seven times? They also pumped Celtic. Malmo = good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ1984 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 That and us depriving them of a second-place finish the year before. That Romanov, eh? What a man! Wasn't it the 2 years prior we finished second? I'm sure they had just got the Europa League Final the same year Kaunas pumped them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Wasn't it the 2 years prior we finished second? I'm sure they had just got the Europa League Final the same year Kaunas pumped them. You're right actually. Probably made up financially for it in the end. 2007/08 The year we finished second they got to the last 16 of the CL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 9m9 minutes ago McIntyre says he would have been "horrified" if he knew about Whyte's deal with Ticketus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman McIntyre says he would have been "horrified" if he knew about Whyte's deal with Ticketus 8m James Doleman? @jamesdoleman McIntyre says he thought takeover was funded by Whyte himself, no mention of "Ticketus money" You'd be think McIntyre would have asked to see evidence of funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Going back to the King thingy, If he still beleives he is acting in the best interest of the Club, the fans and the shareholders, NOt realy for him to decide, As the companies act they have a respnsibility to only the shareholders, The fans are irrelevant at this point? If King does not think 20p is a good deal for the shareholders then offer 30p then? but what does he care? if he offers 20p and those stupid enough to take it (If the price is too cheap?) then king gets a great deal? not only would he effectively control the club and weaken the votes of those who opose him (the zombies and MA) there is nothing stopping him selling those share for a massive profit once he has bought them? he could then push through his debt for equity scheme, then put up a new share floatation making a massive profit while the fans get the chance to own the club? its a win/win. except there is no preverbial pot, niether is the some other mug(or bank) willing to loan King the ?11m in case there is a 100% takeup. Speaking to a few people sort of in the know? bear in mind there is only 2 or 3 cases where cold-sholdering has been invoked, it will in all probability treat King and Sevco so toxic they cant even fart , they will have no banking facilities, no other club will be able to buy/sell players? no agent can get involved. But what about the SFA and the SPFL? how do they keep the licence to play? Uefa should come down hard? but this is unchartered territory? FFP rules are out the window here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincon Premier Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 (edited) Can't really see what White did wrong. If I wanted to buy a car and didn't have the money, I could finance it through the dealer OR get a loan elsewhere and buy outright. Did Whyte not get external finance from Ticketus and only the repayment plan was a bit dodgy.( next few years season books ) Edited April 24, 2017 by Lincon Premier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 (edited) To get a 90k mortgage I've had to show years worth of bank statements and proof that the deposit money is my own etc. Whyte buys a football club and no one bothers to check where the money comes from hilarious. Edited April 24, 2017 by Longshanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Can't really see what White did wrong. If I wanted to buy a car and didn't have the money, I could finance it through the dealer OR get a loan elsewhere and buy outright. Did Whyte not get external finance from Ticketus and only the repayment plan was a bit dodgy.( next few years season books ) Except you syphoned out the petrol , sold off all the parts on ebay, failed to make a single payment to the dealer and had the chassis reposessed and you promised to car share taking four years of petrol money from your mates and never picked them up once? good enough analogy??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ1984 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Except you syphoned out the petrol , sold off all the parts on ebay, failed to make a single payment to the dealer and had the chassis reposessed and you promised to car share taking four years of petrol money from your mates and never picked them up once? good enough analogy??? I think he means prior to that with the original purchase. Is it illegal to buy a company using another deal? It was a massive gamble from Ticketus, not the other way about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Except you syphoned out the petrol , sold off all the parts on ebay, failed to make a single payment to the dealer and had the chassis reposessed and you promised to car share taking four years of petrol money from your mates and never picked them up once? good enough analogy???Holy $#!t. Wouldn't want to get on your bad side. He'd have felt better if you just ripped his heart out and you let him look at it for a few seconds before he died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyBatistuta Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Holy $#!t. Wouldn't want to get on your bad side. He'd have felt better if you just ripped his heart out and you let him look at it for a few seconds before he died. Like it mate, A deep insight into the internal mind workings of Hagar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Can't really see what White did wrong. If I wanted to buy a car and didn't have the money, I could finance it through the dealer OR get a loan elsewhere and buy outright. Did Whyte not get external finance from Ticketus and only the repayment plan was a bit dodgy.( next few years season books ) Before you borrow from a finacial institution your credit rating and history are checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincon Premier Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I think he means prior to that with the original purchase. Is it illegal to buy a company using another deal? It was a massive gamble from Ticketus, not the other way about. Thank you, yes I meant White's deal to get the money to make it look like he was loaded. What White did with them after that is pure bliss. Where I think he went wrong is, it's illegal to buy a company with it's own money. Ie future season ticket sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Just now: @jamesdoleman: Findlay notes that when Walter Smith left the club "one possible successor" would be owed hundreds of thousands if he didn't get the job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 17s18 seconds ago More Findlay describes Rangers in Europe in 2011 as "A day trip to Malm?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Just now: @jamesdoleman: Findlay notes that when Walter Smith left the club "one possible successor" would be owed hundreds of thousands if he didn't get the job Excuse my ignorance but what/who does that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Ingram Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 To get a 90k mortgage I've had to show years worth of bank statements and proof that the deposit money is my own etc. Whyte buys a football club and no one bothers to check where the money comes from hilarious. It's the bank who come out of that part looking bad. If you tried to move ?50,000 they would want to know where it came from... there is no chance they didn't know the origin of the ?18m debt repayment but basically they didn't care, Rangers were off their books. Precisely the same applies to Murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Ingram Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Excuse my ignorance but what/who does that mean? McCoist. The unclear part is whether that simply means a pay off or some other contractual obligation that nobody knew about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 McCoist. The unclear part is whether that simply means a pay off or some other contractual obligation that nobody knew about. Murky stuff either way. [emoji1360] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry hippo Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 It's the bank who come out of that part looking bad. If you tried to move ?50,000 they would want to know where it came from... there is no chance they didn't know the origin of the ?18m debt repayment but basically they didn't care, Rangers were off their books. Precisely the same applies to Murray. Do you think so? From the bank's point of view if someone (Ticketus) was daft enough to lend the money to Whyte then I think they were perfectly entitled to accept that as a legitimate source of funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Ingram Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Do you think so? From the bank's point of view if someone (Ticketus) was daft enough to lend the money to Whyte then I think they were perfectly entitled to accept that as a legitimate source of funds. Of course... but the issue is this subsequent shock/outrage at where the funding came from. I'm just saying it's inconceivable this wasn't known by relevant parties at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Of course... but the issue is this subsequent shock/outrage at where the funding came from. I'm just saying it's inconceivable this wasn't known by relevant parties at the time. It is inconceivable that proof of funds was not confirmed before Murray sold to Whyte. Maybe all that will be explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 It is inconceivable that proof of funds was not confirmed before Murray sold to Whyte. Maybe all that will be explained. I thought Whyte bought Rangers for ?1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 @BBCAndrewBlack: Mr Findlay says "every attempt" was made not to disclose use of Ticketus to Rangers fans. Mr McIntyre says there was no requirement to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 @jamesdoleman: Findlay on Ibrox "bits of it were falling to bits" McIntyre"We'd held back a bit on repairs"? This is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I thought Whyte bought Rangers for ?1? Yeah but how Whyte was going to find money for debt, running costs etc. Murray said loads of people wanted to buy Rangers (though that is being contradicted in court) but he wanted to find the right person. Well it was certainly the right person for the rest of Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 It's the bank who come out of that part looking bad. If you tried to move ?50,000 they would want to know where it came from... there is no chance they didn't know the origin of the ?18m debt repayment but basically they didn't care, Rangers were off their books. Precisely the same applies to Murray. To be fair the bank was forcing SDM to sell up, they wanted their ?18m back, Whytes cheque cleared and the shares were handed over. The banks guy on the board hover must have known what was about to hit the fan regarding the big tax case, or something was smelly enough to warrant a quick sale. The bank got their money back and to be fair at the time of the handover the big tax case was made public, and the outcome was still going through the courts,in the full view of the media, so nobody can be accused of insider trading, eveybody should have expeced both tax cases to hit the club to the max. Again the bank was acting in the interest of their shareholders. So the deal between ticketus and whyte was not realy the banks problem. But if the bank knew the deal looked suspect, then no doubt so did SDM, yet SDM came out and said he was duped...aye right, the bank was not duped, they got their money back they would have had the same intel as SDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I thought Whyte bought Rangers for ?1? Yes that is true, however as it was the Bank who were pushing the sale of the club, it would have been a requirement that whoever bought the club would also have to clear the ?18m bank debt, both were linked to each other. Lloyd's wouldn't care two hoots where they money came from, they only cared about their ?18m, it was up to the rest of the Rangers board including Murray as to the well being and future of the club to whom ever they sold it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 @jamesdoleman: Findlay on Ibrox "bits of it were falling to bits" McIntyre"We'd held back a bit on repairs"? This is great. And from decent sources this is still the case, ?millions need to be spent on repairs, none of Kings kids inheritance has been spent though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I'd say yep. All they would need to do would be to make sure the funds came from a legitimate source, i.e not laundered. Ticketus/Octopus would be considered, sorry is a legitimate source of funding. Do you think so? From the bank's point of view if someone (Ticketus) was daft enough to lend the money to Whyte then I think they were perfectly entitled to accept that as a legitimate source of funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 @BBCAndrewBlack: Mr Findlay says "every attempt" was made not to disclose use of Ticketus to Rangers fans. Mr McIntyre says there was no requirement to. Now does this mean Craig Whyte using Ticketus to fund the takeover? Or Rangers (pre Whyte) also at times used Ticketus for working capital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Ingram Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Now does this mean Craig Whyte using Ticketus to fund the takeover? Or Rangers (pre Whyte) also at times used Ticketus for working capital? He used it to repay the bank. And yes... by their own admission. It was Rangers who pointed Whyte in Ticketus direction! (albeit they insist only for much smaller amounts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 To be fair the bank was forcing SDM to sell up, they wanted their ?18m back, Whytes cheque cleared and the shares were handed over. The banks guy on the board hover must have known what was about to hit the fan regarding the big tax case, or something was smelly enough to warrant a quick sale. The bank got their money back and to be fair at the time of the handover the big tax case was made public, and the outcome was still going through the courts,in the full view of the media, so nobody can be accused of insider trading, eveybody should have expeced both tax cases to hit the club to the max. Again the bank was acting in the interest of their shareholders. So the deal between ticketus and whyte was not realy the banks problem. But if the bank knew the deal looked suspect, then no doubt so did SDM, yet SDM came out and said he was duped...aye right, the bank was not duped, they got their money back they would have had the same intel as SDM Duped my erse, Murray couldn't wait to get rid of the old Rangers, probably and mainly because he didn't want to be left without a chair when the music stopped, which he knew was about to happen. SDM gets a far too easy ride by the media in Scotland, when it was he who had jammed the accelerator to the floor of the train that was Rangers (RIP) before it hit the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Can't really see what White did wrong. If I wanted to buy a car and didn't have the money, I could finance it through the dealer OR get a loan elsewhere and buy outright. Did Whyte not get external finance from Ticketus and only the repayment plan was a bit dodgy.( next few years season books ) He lied and induced others to lie. He claimed he had the funds independently and showed "proof", when the truth is that the funds were only there after the deal went through. Leveraged deals aren't against the law, lying through your teeth to get a deal done is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 He lied and induced others to lie. He claimed he had the funds independently and showed "proof", when the truth is that the funds were only there after the deal went through. Leveraged deals aren't against the law, lying through your teeth to get a deal done is I accept the way its been explained in court it seems Whyte did show proof of funds. But that is still naivity. I'm sure there be evidence that responsible deals check that the deal structure is not going to put the company at risk which by not paying the tax due to the debt this effectively did. Having said that there are some dodgy deals that take place that end up closing businesses usually to the benefit of the financiers. But not sure how that would have worked unless a house builder wanted Ibrox and Auchentowie. Shame really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Like it mate, A deep insight into the internal mind workings of Hagar You cant blame a viking for being a viking :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 He used it to repay the bank. And yes... by their own admission. It was Rangers who pointed Whyte in Ticketus direction! (albeit they insist only for much smaller amounts) Ta, I probably should have worded my q's better. Is this 'hiding' use of Ticketus from the fans referring to Whyte's use of Ticketus to fund the takeover or Rangers pre Whyte needing to use Tcketus for short term working capital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts