The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[JJ1984]

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.

 

What's there not to like about that though?  Murray OWNED the media when boss, they done as he said.  They would never go against him. 

[JJ1984]

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

 

He claimed he had funds for what?  He bought the club for ?1 and paid of the debt.  I'm not sure what part is lies.  "I'll buy rangers off you and clear the debt, David"  he done so. 

[269miles]

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. 

This. 

 

And how could Whyte convince Ticketus to cough up ?20+ million ? Based on what ? Whyte was/is a nobody. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

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?

Lots of clubs used Ticketus to get by as a short term payday loan deal, untill the season ticket money came pouring in?  however you have to ask Ticketus, why would you give ?25m loan to get ?50m back from 4 years of season ticket sales (@ 100% of income)?  you would know well in advance that would leave zero working capital, so there would be zero chance of getting anywhere near your money back, I just dont get why ticketus did not hold onto the re deeds until it was all paid back?  I said this at the time away back into 2012, I hope somebody asks them this question?

[jambo lodge]

The deal to buy Murray's 80% plus shareholding in Rangers was for ?1. Were the inherited debts part of the deal or separate issues?

[jambovambo]

This.

 

And how could Whyte convince Ticketus to cough up ?20+ million ? Based on what ? Whyte was/is a nobody.

Sorry. He is/was a billionaire with "off the radar" wealth, no?

[milky_26]

Sorry. He is/was a billionaire with "off the radar" wealth, no?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/craig-whyte-profile-the-scots-billionaire-1076110

[Mikey1874]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/craig-whyte-profile-the-scots-billionaire-1076110

"Financial whizzkid" and "high roller"

 

Sounds positive. Just what Rangers need.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Mikey1874

[John Findlay]

Keith Jackson getting into print. The press statement released to him by level 5.

 

What a sycophant.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

What's there not to like about that though?  Murray OWNED the media when boss, they done as he said.  They would never go against him. 

 

True the Media did as they were told when Murray was in charge of the Worlds most bigoted club, that much is true, but he's not in charge anymore, yet they still leave him alone and don't ask the real questions which need asking.

[jambovambo]

Anyone seen the Argentinian film "Nine queens" ?

 

It's like the plot from that ...

 

Brilliant scam film

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZjZGrSh7KA

[Rick Grimes]

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.

Did the Glazers not do exactly that when buying Man Utd? Debt raised was against the company I believe, did they just add an extra loop to bypass the law?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Keith Jackson getting into print. The press statement released to him by level 5.

 

What a sycophant.

Point of info. Level 5 didn't exist then. The similarity is that Jim "succulent lamb" Traynor was his boss.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Did the Glazers not do exactly that when buying Man Utd? Debt raised was against the company I believe, did they just add an extra loop to bypass the law?

Not quite. They used debt to fund the share purchase and then due to owning over 90%, transferred that debt to the club. It's called a leveraged buyout. Edited April 24, 2017 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[jamboy1982]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/craig-whyte-profile-the-scots-billionaire-1076110

It's quite an enjoyable read

[Unknown user]

He claimed he had funds for what? He bought the club for ?1 and paid of the debt. I'm not sure what part is lies. "I'll buy rangers off you and clear the debt, David" he done so.

You seem irritated by this for a hearts fan, but maybe I'm reading your tone wrong.

 

Anyway, he claimed he had funds to pay off the debt in full and was asked to prove it so they could be sure he wasn't just some shyster - this was a condition of the sale.

Don't forget, Rangers were publicly traded and there was a requirement to be fair to current shareholders and potential traders - they weren't just going to hand over to someone with a quid and a promise.

 

He induced a firm of solicitors to produce a proof of funds letter for money that didn't exist and kept the real source of his funding, effectively a high interest loan in rangers' name, secret.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Smithee

[Unknown user]

Did the Glazers not do exactly that when buying Man Utd? Debt raised was against the company I believe, did they just add an extra loop to bypass the law?

Leveraged deals are not against the law.

 

Whyte provided fake proof of funds because having the money to pay the debt in advance was a condition of the deal.

 

He lied and he got others to lie on his behalf - it's an open and shut case

[Rick Grimes]

Leveraged deals are not against the law.

 

Whyte provided fake proof of funds because having the money to pay the debt in advance was a condition of the deal.

 

He lied and he got others to lie on his behalf - it's an open and shut case

Fair enough, cheers to you and Geoff for clarifying.

 

Does seem, from the company involved's point of view, a bit of much of a muchness given where the debt ultimately ends up under either scenario but it's Rangers so zero ****s given.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

You seem irritated by this for a hearts fan, but maybe I'm reading your tone wrong.

 

Anyway, he claimed he had funds to pay off the debt in full and was asked to prove it so they could be sure he wasn't just some shyster - this was a condition of the sale.

Don't forget, Rangers were publicly traded and there was a requirement to be fair to current shareholders and potential traders - they weren't just going to hand over to someone with a quid and a promise.

 

He induced a firm of solicitors to produce a proof of funds letter for money that didn't exist and kept the real source of his funding, effectively a high interest loan in rangers' name, secret.

 

Not just you Smithee, I also picked up an amount of irritation in his/her reply to me as well, maybe it's just their writing style or we've both just picked things up wrong.

 

Still I agree it does seem somewhat odd for a Hearts fan to get so irritated at what we've said about the old deceased bigoted scum of a club that cheated their way to so many titles and cups.

[John Findlay]

Point of info. Level 5 didn't exist then. The similarity is that Jim "succulent lamb" Traynor was his boss.

You mean to say he no longer is?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

You mean to say he no longer is?

I think you should look the word "similarity" up.

[Unknown user]

Not just you Smithee, I also picked up an amount of irritation in his/her reply to me as well, maybe it's just their writing style or we've both just picked things up wrong.

 

Still I agree it does seem somewhat odd for a Hearts fan to get so irritated at what we've said about the old deceased bigoted scum of a club that cheated their way to so many titles and cups.

Indeed, I can't think why any good jambo would get butt hurt by discussing the filthy hun hordes and their cheating ways, both the old club that they let die, and the new one that isn't rangers any more.

[jambovambo]

I think you should look the word "similarity" up.

I think you missed the tongue-cheek connection ...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think you missed the tongue-cheek connection ...

Where Findlay is concerned, probably.

[JJ1984]

You seem irritated by this for a hearts fan, but maybe I'm reading your tone wrong.

 

Anyway, he claimed he had funds to pay off the debt in full and was asked to prove it so they could be sure he wasn't just some shyster - this was a condition of the sale.

Don't forget, Rangers were publicly traded and there was a requirement to be fair to current shareholders and potential traders - they weren't just going to hand over to someone with a quid and a promise.

 

He induced a firm of solicitors to produce a proof of funds letter for money that didn't exist and kept the real source of his funding, effectively a high interest loan in rangers' name, secret.

Not sure what you're trying to indicate with the first sentence to be honest mate.

 

Did he not pay off the debt in full? It was the tax case stuff and no having a pot to piss in after player sales and no ticket income goosed the plan. That and Malmo.

[JJ1984]

Not just you Smithee, I also picked up an amount of irritation in his/her reply to me as well, maybe it's just their writing style or we've both just picked things up wrong.

 

Still I agree it does seem somewhat odd for a Hearts fan to get so irritated at what we've said about the old deceased bigoted scum of a club that cheated their way to so many titles and cups.

Let's make one thing clear. I ****ing hate Glasgow Rangers or any guise they call themselves.

 

I have a soft spot for Whyte and I'm not sure what he's crimanily done wrong, doesn't make me a Tim or a Lochend Tim JR neither.

Edited April 24, 2017 by JJ1984

[John Findlay]

I think you should look the word "similarity" up.

I suggest you look up the word was.

[John Findlay]

Where Findlay is concerned, probably.

You are welcome Kilpatrick.

[Unknown user]

Not sure what you're trying to indicate with the first sentence to be honest mate.

 

Did he not pay off the debt in full? It was the tax case stuff and no having a pot to piss in after player sales and no ticket income goosed the plan. That and Malmo.

Honestly, I don't know how I could have been clearer, in my first sentence or the rest! You seemed irritated, and it seems I read you right as you confirmed with your support for Whyte.

 

Whyte broke the law. He was asked to prove that he had 20 something million ready to pay off the debt. He lied in saying that he had it, and he got a firm of lawyers to lie and confirm he had it lodged with them. If that hadn't happened, the deal wouldn't have gone through - it all hinged on this one giant lie.

 

And the bit in bold - no, he didn't pay the debt in full. Rangers did. With borrowed money.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Smithee

[269miles]

Let's make one thing clear. I ******* hate Glasgow Rangers or any guise they call themselves.

 

I have a soft spot for Whyte and I'm not sure what he's crimanily done wrong, doesn't make me a Tim or a Lochend Tim JR neither.

 

Let's make one thing clear. I ******* hate Glasgow Rangers or any guise they call themselves.

 

I have a soft spot for Whyte and I'm not sure what he's crimanily done wrong, doesn't make me a Tim or a Lochend Tim JR neither.

 

Let's make one thing clear. I ******* hate Glasgow Rangers or any guise they call themselves.

 

I have a soft spot for Whyte and I'm not sure what he's crimanily done wrong, doesn't make me a Tim or a Lochend Tim JR neither.

He lied about having the money to buy Rangers RIP and he hawked their income to the tune of ?20+ million to do it. That is an offence. Not only that - The Record lied about him being a billionaire. And someone surely lied to Ticketus to enable Whyte to get that money. All part of the plan to ensure a no mark schemer (whose dad SDM did business with) got the money to buy Rangers and keep it alive. Alive long enough to get his hands on the assets - that what he made his money on his whole life. rescuing distressed companies, shedding the debt and keeping the assets. But The Record was never going to report that. As for shedding the debt and staying "alive" - the SFA/SPFL was quite happy with that idea. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

He lied about having the money to buy Rangers RIP and he hawked their income to the tune of ?20+ million to do it. That is an offence. Not only that - The Record lied about him being a billionaire. And someone surely lied to Ticketus to enable Whyte to get that money. All part of the plan to ensure a no mark schemer (whose dad SDM did business with) got the money to buy Rangers and keep it alive. Alive long enough to get his hands on the assets - that what he made his money on his whole life. rescuing distressed companies, shedding the debt and keeping the assets. But The Record was never going to report that. As for shedding the debt and staying "alive" - the SFA/SPFL was quite happy with that idea.

Perhaps he lied but he was aided and abetted by Lloyds in doing so. As for Ticketus, more fool them.

 

I'd like to see Whyte get off because he has seen been set up as a patsy by the Scottish media.

[Tommy Brown]

it all hinged on this one giant lie.

 

Just a wee Whyte lie, surely.

[Deevers]

Perhaps he lied but he was aided and abetted by Lloyds in doing so. As for Ticketus, more fool them.

I'd like to see Whyte get off because he has seen been set up as a patsy by the Scottish media.

Naw. Whyte knew exactly what he was doing. As for the Scottish media, they yet again showed themselves up as being the foolish, biased numpties that they always have been. The sad thing about them is that they never learn and never change no matter how stupid they are made to look. Just a bit like those in charge at Hampden.

[PTBCAL]

Quick question guys,

 

Although I fully expect THE RANGERS to be allowed to compete in the Europa cup by the SFA or whoever but in simple terms should they actually be allowed? What criteria are they failing to fulfill?

 

Genuine question as I have lost track with all Der Hun shenanigans.

 

Cheers

[Lovecraft]

Quick question guys,

 

Although I fully expect THE RANGERS to be allowed to compete in the Europa cup by the SFA or whoever but in simple terms should they actually be allowed? What criteria are they failing to fulfill?

 

Genuine question as I have lost track with all Der Hun shenanigans.

 

Cheers

 

It would probably be FFP, as they are essentially being held up by soft loans.

 

Soft loans that are looking more and more like donations.

 

With the latest shenanigans from King, they could lose their finance option for next years season tickets too.  Sevco are a highly toxic company, as is King. 

[JJ1984]

He lied about having the money to buy Rangers RIP and he hawked their income to the tune of ?20+ million to do it. That is an offence. Not only that - The Record lied about him being a billionaire. And someone surely lied to Ticketus to enable Whyte to get that money. All part of the plan to ensure a no mark schemer (whose dad SDM did business with) got the money to buy Rangers and keep it alive. Alive long enough to get his hands on the assets - that what he made his money on his whole life. rescuing distressed companies, shedding the debt and keeping the assets. But The Record was never going to report that. As for shedding the debt and staying "alive" - the SFA/SPFL was quite happy with that idea.

Who did he lie to? He said he had the money to clear the historic debt - which he did. If I go into my bank and say I'll clear all my debt (had I had debt) by Friday and done so based on getting a payday loan is that against the law? I could have a couple of k left over, buy a nice suit and act minted for a night saying I'm loaded. Bullshit but not fraudulent?

[JJ1984]

Honestly, I don't know how I could have been clearer, in my first sentence or the rest! You seemed irritated, and it seems I read you right as you confirmed with your support for Whyte.

 

Whyte broke the law. He was asked to prove that he had 20 something million ready to pay off the debt. He lied in saying that he had it, and he got a firm of lawyers to lie and confirm he had it lodged with them. If that hadn't happened, the deal wouldn't have gone through - it all hinged on this one giant lie.

 

And the bit in bold - no, he didn't pay the debt in full. Rangers did. With borrowed money.

Fair enough if he lied about how he was getting the funds to clear off debts, not sure who he lied to and what he said but I'll take your word for it I find the whole thing humours, they where desperate for someone to come in, media talked shite as probably requested by Murray, Rangers gambled, failed, went down the shitter and eventually blame the guy who they all said and media stated has off the radar wealth.

 

The bank should be strung up for not asking more questions of where his income was coming from and David Murray. Of course neither will and Whyte will be the only fall guy, maybe duff and phelps too.

Edited April 25, 2017 by JJ1984

[Diadora Van Basten]

The proof is in the pudding but I don't think he did anything criminal.

 

If you are selling a car and someone says they want to buy it and will pay x for it you don't have a right to know where that x is coming from.

 

If you then pay x and buy the car then the previous owner then loses all rights over the car.

[Lovecraft]

Who did he lie to? He said he had the money to clear the historic debt - which he did. If I go into my bank and say I'll clear all my debt (had I had debt) by Friday and done so based on getting a payday loan is that against the law? I could have a couple of k left over, buy a nice suit and act minted for a night saying I'm loaded. Bullshit but not fraudulent?

 

I'm guessing he said he had the money before the deal with ticketus, meaning he needed to buy Rangers first to use the assets to secure the money.

 

Kinda like buying a house, and using the house you don't own yet, to take out another mortgage to pay for the first mortgage's deposit.  Illegal.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The proof is in the pudding but I don't think he did anything criminal.

 

If you are selling a car and someone says they want to buy it and will pay x for it you don't have a right to know where that x is coming from.

 

If you then pay x and buy the car then the previous owner then loses all rights over the car.

Um, no. You can be found to have benefitted from the proceeds of crime.

[Mikey1874]

Anyway, he claimed he had funds to pay off the debt in full and was asked to prove it so they could be sure he wasn't just some shyster - this was a condition of the sale.

Don't forget, Rangers were publicly traded and there was a requirement to be fair to current shareholders and potential traders - they weren't just going to hand over to someone with a quid and a promise.

 

He induced a firm of solicitors to produce a proof of funds letter for money that didn't exist and kept the real source of his funding, effectively a high interest loan in rangers' name, secret.

Thanks for clarifying

 

Look forward to the evidence coming soon

[JJ1984]

I'm guessing he said he had the money before the deal with ticketus, meaning he needed to buy Rangers first to use the assets to secure the money.

 

Kinda like buying a house, and using the house you don't own yet, to take out another mortgage to pay for the first mortgage's deposit. Illegal.

Your probably correct but unless he fraudulently showed he was getting the money elsewhere can he be done? And was the deal with ticketus done after he bought rangers or deal brokered on the assumption he was buying them? I still don't understand what the guy was trying to achieve on the grand scheme of things to be honest, too much shite flying about from the beginning to avoid the fan.

[CollyWolly]

Whyte broke the law. He was asked to prove that he had 20 something million ready to pay off the debt. He lied in saying that he had it, and he got a firm of lawyers to lie and confirm he had it lodged with them. If that hadn't happened, the deal wouldn't have gone through - it all hinged on this one giant lie.

Its really that simple ? Why the need for a 6 week trial and all this expense then ? Because its not simple, in fact its massively complex. Whyte is not the only dodgy character in this mystery. SDM, Green, King and a whole raft of others all probably have some level of culpability. At the moment all the fingers are pointing at Whyte and he may well have been underhand at best and fraudulent at worst. Reasonable doubt !!! I think there will be and is reasonable doubt as to whether what Whyte did was just a bit cheeky or was it outright criminal conduct, that's the aura Donald Findlay is trying to create at the end of all this and I think he'll walk.

Edited April 25, 2017 by CollyWolly

[PTBCAL]

It would probably be FFP, as they are essentially being held up by soft loans.

 

Soft loans that are looking more and more like donations.

 

With the latest shenanigans from King, they could lose their finance option for next years season tickets too.  Sevco are a highly toxic company, as is King.

 

Cheers

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Who did he lie to? He said he had the money to clear the historic debt - which he did. If I go into my bank and say I'll clear all my debt (had I had debt) by Friday and done so based on getting a payday loan is that against the law? I could have a couple of k left over, buy a nice suit and act minted for a night saying I'm loaded. Bullshit but not fraudulent?

 

Whoever was selling the club, would be my guess.

 

Murray in the first instance and Lloyds in the second.

 

For Murray's part he would have needed documentation proving that Craig Whyte had the funds to pay off the ?18m bank debt, Murray wouldn't have wanted to sell the club for ?1 only to learn the ?18m was not being paid off as well and thus he could still have been liable to pay it.

 

Lloyds would have also needed documentation proving that Craig Whyte had the funds to pay off the ?18m debt.

 

Where it gets murky is did Craig Whyte provide false documentation saying that he had the money when he didn't or did he get the money from Ticketus before he bought the club and then could provide documentation that he had X amount of money on deposit to pay the debt off, and that is something which should come out during the trial I would think.

Either way some folks didn't do a good enough job in the due diligence into Craig Whyte or was he part of a larger conspiracy, again this should all come out during the trial.

 

There is a huge difference between saying that I'll clear my debt off at the end of the week or month to saying I'll buy that business or that house for example.

To purchase a business or house you need to provide proof that you have the funds to do so and also the source of the funds as well, the owner of that property isn't going to take your word that you have the funds to buy the property, you will need to provide documentation to prove you can afford to buy the property.  Craig Whyte would have needed to do so as well.

[Lincon Premier]

To be clear I am not a Sevco supporter or want anything nice to happen to them, but I have to agree with JJ1984. ( I also have no idea of his allegiances ) So White supplied proof he had the funds ( he most certainly had the ?1 ) Who did he supply that proof too? If it was just to SDM and his solicitors ,they lie all the time too. If it was to a court of law then I can see he committed a crime.

Stated before, he committed a crime by purchasing a company with it's own money, I understand that. But this trial ( as far as I can see ) is about before then, and his discussions with SDM.

Personally think this whole thing is a smoke screen and the case will fall apart, and it's just to make it look like they are abiding by the law.

I also believe SDM was complicit and gave White Ticktus's phone number, and he knew all along what was going down.

The big case with Mike Ashley will be far more entertaining as it could well be ( along with Kings punishment ) the final straw that broke IBROKES back.

What ever happens it can't happen quick enough, as I think they are struggling on to the split before and admin event. IMHO it shouldn't matter, admin should mean points deduction and if that takes them into the bottom six then so be it. Teams down there should scream and scream until they are sick over it ( should it happen as I predict )

[Hungry hippo]

Whoever was selling the club, would be my guess.

 

Murray in the first instance and Lloyds in the second.

 

For Murray's part he would have needed documentation proving that Craig Whyte had the funds to pay off the ?18m bank debt, Murray wouldn't have wanted to sell the club for ?1 only to learn the ?18m was not being paid off as well and thus he could still have been liable to pay it.

 

Lloyds would have also needed documentation proving that Craig Whyte had the funds to pay off the ?18m debt.

 

Where it gets murky is did Craig Whyte provide false documentation saying that he had the money when he didn't or did he get the money from Ticketus before he bought the club and then could provide documentation that he had X amount of money on deposit to pay the debt off, and that is something which should come out during the trial I would think.

Either way some folks didn't do a good enough job in the due diligence into Craig Whyte or was he part of a larger conspiracy, again this should all come out during the trial.

 

There is a huge difference between saying that I'll clear my debt off at the end of the week or month to saying I'll buy that business or that house for example.

To purchase a business or house you need to provide proof that you have the funds to do so and also the source of the funds as well, the owner of that property isn't going to take your word that you have the funds to buy the property, you will need to provide documentation to prove you can afford to buy the property. Craig Whyte would have needed to do so as well.

If he said that he was essentially refinancing the debt to Ticketus then no lender would have a problem with that especially with a very risky outlook for tge business.

 

The moral responsibility for Rangers future lay firmly with Murray and the Rangers board IMO.

[269miles]

To be clear I am not a Sevco supporter or want anything nice to happen to them, but I have to agree with JJ1984. ( I also have no idea of his allegiances ) So White supplied proof he had the funds ( he most certainly had the ?1 ) Who did he supply that proof too? If it was just to SDM and his solicitors ,they lie all the time too. If it was to a court of law then I can see he committed a crime.

Stated before, he committed a crime by purchasing a company with it's own money, I understand that. But this trial ( as far as I can see ) is about before then, and his discussions with SDM.

Personally think this whole thing is a smoke screen and the case will fall apart, and it's just to make it look like they are abiding by the law.

I also believe SDM was complicit and gave White Ticktus's phone number, and he knew all along what was going down.

The big case with Mike Ashley will be far more entertaining as it could well be ( along with Kings punishment ) the final straw that broke IBROKES back.

What ever happens it can't happen quick enough, as I think they are struggling on to the split before and admin event. IMHO it shouldn't matter, admin should mean points deduction and if that takes them into the bottom six then so be it. Teams down there should scream and scream until they are sick over it ( should it happen as I predict )

Someone had to be behind this scam in terms of who the hell persuaded Ticketus to give an absolute nobody like Whyte ?20+million. Naturally the Glasgow media don't go anywhere near this question. RangersRIP own board produced a report that said stay away from Whyte and yet SDM ignored it and carried on with the sale.  But again, the Glasgow media doesn't say anything about this and absolutely fails to criticise SDM in any way.

 

You have to wonder what Whyte thought he could realistically achieve - SDM knew about the wee tax case bill being payable but that was nothing compared to the EBT scandal - for which Rangers had offered ?10 million to HMRC to make them go away. So, Whyte saddles Rangers with ?20+ million debt , add in the tax bills payable and your looking at a debt of ?40 million. Just for starters. Maybe the plan was always to crash the club, shed the debt and keep hold of the assets (stadium). 

 

After all , that's what Whyte was famous for.  That was/is his MO. But what was criminal about all this - he'd been doing it for years.  I'm looking forward to following the court case. 

[jambovambo]

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 59s59 seconds ago

 

Findlay says the Rangers board had no idea how to with big tax case, potential liability over ?50m "That would be the end of Rangers"

[JJ1984]

Someone had to be behind this scam in terms of who the hell persuaded Ticketus to give an absolute nobody like Whyte ?20+million. Naturally the Glasgow media don't go anywhere near this question. RangersRIP own board produced a report that said stay away from Whyte and yet SDM ignored it and carried on with the sale.  But again, the Glasgow media doesn't say anything about this and absolutely fails to criticise SDM in any way.

 

You have to wonder what Whyte thought he could realistically achieve - SDM knew about the wee tax case bill being payable but that was nothing compared to the EBT scandal - for which Rangers had offered ?10 million to HMRC to make them go away. So, Whyte saddles Rangers with ?20+ million debt , add in the tax bills payable and your looking at a debt of ?40 million. Just for starters. Maybe the plan was always to crash the club, shed the debt and keep hold of the assets (stadium). 

 

After all , that's what Whyte was famous for.  That was/is his MO. But what was criminal about all this - he'd been doing it for years.  I'm looking forward to following the court case. 

 

Completely agree.