The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[I.T.K]

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. 

 

Thats how I see it.

 

Can someone remind: Were the EBT's finally ruled as tax evasion by the courts. It was going from court case to court case and I dont recall the latest.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

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.

 

Yes, exactly, Lloyds' only concern would have been that the money was legal, they wouldn't have cared less if Whyte had taken out a massive wonga style loan, not their problem, that's Whyte's problem, the club could have folded a month or two later, not Lloyds problem as they have been paid off.

 

David Murray and the Rangers board including one David Cunningham King on the other hand had or should have had a completely different outlook concerning the future of the club.

And here is where I can not get my head around why they sold the club to Whyte, everybody knew Craig Whyte was as dodgy as a ?7 note, he was setting off red flags here there and everywhere, Lloyds would have known this and so you would think David Murray and the Rangers board as well, they're business men they would have access to all manner of inside information about Craig Whyte and his previous business dealings, yet they still sold the club to him.

That's what I can't understand, why did proper Rangers men sell the club to someone with the previous history like Craig Whyte had, surely they could have said no we're not selling to him.

[Unknown user]

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.

Honestly, I'm finding this weird as hell now, I feel like I'm the only person that can see large scale fraud is a crime.

 

There was a lot of stuff going on, a tangled web of moves, shenanigans, newspaper stories and lies, but when you break it down, at the core we KNOW a condition of the deal was having the money to pay the debt in advance.

We know he didn't have the money, and we also know he got a firm of lawyers to help him commit fraud so he could pretend he did - these are facts, it wasn't enough to have one pound on his pocket and a plan.

 

Other things may have happened too, but we know all of the above happened, and that's crime that is, especially the bit with the lawyers.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Smithee

[Deevers]

Honestly, I'm finding this weird as hell now, I feel like I'm the only person that can see large scale fraud is a crime.

There was a lot of stuff going on, a tangled web of moves, shenanigans, newspaper stories and lies, but when you break it down, at the core we KNOW a condition of the deal was having the money to pay the debt in advance.

We know he didn't have the money, and we also know he got a firm of lawyers to help him commit fraud so he could pretend he did - these are facts, it wasn't enough to have one pound on his pocket and a plan.

Other things may have happened too, but we know all of the above happened, and that's crime that is, especially the bit with the lawyers.

 

Exactly as I see it.

[CollyWolly]

Honestly, I'm finding this weird as hell now, I feel like I'm the only person that can see large scale fraud is a crime.

 

There was a lot of stuff going on, a tangled web of moves, shenanigans, newspaper stories and lies, but when you break it down, at the core we KNOW a condition of the deal was having the money to pay the debt in advance.

We know he didn't have the money, and we also know he got a firm of lawyers to help him commit fraud so he could pretend he did - these are facts, it wasn't enough to have one pound on his pocket and a plan.

 

Other things may have happened too, but we know all of the above happened, and that's crime that is, especially the bit with the lawyers.

Your prejudging the outcome here based on 2 days of barely relevant evidence and a load of biased and inaccurate reporting and blogging.

 

There is another way of looking at this, but again its based on heresay at this stage. He bought the club for ?1. Got a promise of money from Ticketus to complete the transaction. Was rather vague with SDM and the board about where the money was coming from to pay the debt. No cared to look too deeply into that at the time or they would have discovered where the money was coming from. They simply didn't ask.No one that I can see in that whole transaction was defrauded, in fact just about everyone gained or broke even, apart from Ticketus who, from what Ive read, deserved everything they got for a complete lack of due diligence done on Craig Whyte and/or Rangers football club and lost due entirely due to their own foolishness and gullibility

Edited April 25, 2017 by CollyWolly

[Lincon Premier]

Honestly, I'm finding this weird as hell now, I feel like I'm the only person that can see large scale fraud is a crime.

 

There was a lot of stuff going on, a tangled web of moves, shenanigans, newspaper stories and lies, but when you break it down, at the core we KNOW a condition of the deal was having the money to pay the debt in advance.

We know he didn't have the money, and we also know he got a firm of lawyers to help him commit fraud so he could pretend he did - these are facts, it wasn't enough to have one pound on his pocket and a plan.

 

Other things may have happened too, but we know all of the above happened, and that's crime that is, especially the bit with the lawyers.

Maybe try this then: White got the money from Ticketus, On the understanding he would get control of Sevco. ( A bit like getting a mortgage in principal before looking at houses ). White then shows, you know, whoever, this statement, where he has a mortgage in place and they sell to him. 

White broke the law by using Sevco's own money to buy them ( future season book sales ) BUT is this case not about what happened before that, and not the fact he broke the law by using this method?

Once again to be clear I am only playing devil's advocate ( Findlay ). I still think this is all a big sham and it will fall apart with everyone claiming a win.

[jambovambo]

Letter dated 26 November 2010, McIntyre confirmed Rangers accepted liability as there was a "side letter"

Last Stacey asks relevance

 

(Doleman)

 

I'm sure he's tried to type Lady rather than Last

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

Edited April 25, 2017 by jambovambo

[DETTY29]

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

You will need FF to confirm the finer detail but:-

 

FFP allows for losses of ?5m over a 3 year monitoring period. TRFC is sitting at around ?12m.

 

However, the monitoring period for 2017/18 is financial years 2015, 2016, 2017 and TRFC (along with us and many others) financial year end is not until 30 June 2017 and unlikely to be signed off and released until November / December. I'll make a broad assumption clubs need to give SFA/UEFA some form of financial projections to confirm future state of play.

 

Alternatively, clubs can write off losses by way of debt for equity (Vlad did this twice but can't recall if this was for FFP rules of the time) or benefactors write off loans to level of ?23.5m.

 

There are also dates where submissions from clubs are provided to SFA and Uefa but I think the 2 keys ones are 31 March and 30 June as these are the dates where the license to play the forthcoming season could be declined as Uefa competitions start late June / early July.

 

We're now past March, TRFC released an unaudited loss (although initially reported as a profit, oh and no balance sheet) of c?300k to end December 2016. 2nd half of most seasons tend to be more challenging for clubs so it's highly unlikely a profit will be posted and if by some miracle one is, insufficient to reduce losses.

 

So TRFC should be calling out at least a failure to meet FFP based purely on profit / loss although their future financial projections could include a plan to write off losses and / or a way to turn the business around so as to get back into an ongoing financial stable position.

 

And if these projections do, then SFA could endorse and Uefa ratify a decision to provide a Uefa licence for next season however, TRFC should then come under very strict Uefa monitoring and potential conditions of licence including restrictions on squad size, wage/income ratios etc.

 

I'm sure both Somers with his 90 day review and King have stated a need for Uefa income to help turn the business around however I don't think Uefa allow such income in projections.

 

IMO they will get a license for next season. An early exit and all the other court case crap going on just now goes against them, they might regret going for it in fear of further Uefa sanction.

 

Unless of course Park and one of the other 3 bears is prepared to invest and w/o millions.

[Mikey1874]

What is being presented in court now is very revealing

 

Looking worse for David Murray

 

Seems Murray chose not to pay tax

Edited April 25, 2017 by Mikey1874

[Lincon Premier]

You will need FF to confirm the finer detail but:-

 

FFP allows for losses of ?5m over a 3 year monitoring period. TRFC is sitting at around ?12m.

 

However, the monitoring period for 2017/18 is financial years 2015, 2016, 2017 and TRFC (along with us and many others) financial year end is not until 30 June 2017 and unlikely to be signed off and released until November / December. I'll make a broad assumption clubs need to give SFA/UEFA some form of financial projections to confirm future state of play.

 

Alternatively, clubs can write off losses by way of debt for equity (Vlad did this twice but can't recall if this was for FFP rules of the time) or benefactors write off loans to level of ?23.5m.

 

There are also dates where submissions from clubs are provided to SFA and Uefa but I think the 2 keys ones are 31 March and 30 June as these are the dates where the license to play the forthcoming season could be declined as Uefa competitions start late June / early July.

 

We're now past March, TRFC released an unaudited loss (although initially reported as a profit, oh and no balance sheet) of c?300k to end December 2016. 2nd half of most seasons tend to be more challenging for clubs so it's highly unlikely a profit will be posted and if by some miracle one is, insufficient to reduce losses.

 

So TRFC should be calling out at least a failure to meet FFP based purely on profit / loss although their future financial projections could include a plan to write off losses and / or a way to turn the business around so as to get back into an ongoing financial stable position.

 

And if these projections do, then SFA could endorse and Uefa ratify a decision to provide a Uefa licence for next season however, TRFC should then come under very strict Uefa monitoring and potential conditions of licence including restrictions on squad size, wage/income ratios etc.

 

I'm sure both Somers with his 90 day review and King have stated a need for Uefa income to help turn the business around however I don't think Uefa allow such income in projections.

 

IMO they will get a license for next season. An early exit and all the other court case crap going on just now goes against them, they might regret going for it in fear of further Uefa sanction.

 

Unless of course Park and one of the other 3 bears is prepared to invest and w/o millions.

To add: I would think the King punishment may have a large bearing on what the other three do. IF as is being reported they get dragged into the cold shoulder thing then their other businesses and income could well suffer badly, and they may decide to cut and run. The cold shoulder thing would stop them changing debt for equity and also stop them selling up. So they may decide they have had enough. Admin would be the next step.

[DETTY29]

Thats how I see it.

 

Can someone remind: Were the EBT's finally ruled as tax evasion by the courts. It was going from court case to court case and I dont recall the latest.

First Tier Tribunal deemed most were legal, 5 I think weren't.

 

Upper Tier Tribunal agreed in principle although asked for a few more to be reviewed.

 

Court of Session in Edinburgh over ruled and advised EBTs on the whole illegal.

 

BDO on behalf of RFC plc (IL) creditors have appealed to UK Supreme Court to over turn Scottish Court of Session decision.

 

So at this moment on the whole illegal, but under final appeal.

Edited April 25, 2017 by DETTY29

[Mikey1874]

This trial sits nicely in time with Supreme Court to follow.

[Diadora Van Basten]

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

There is no crime in my example.

[Diadora Van Basten]

Maybe try this then: White got the money from Ticketus, On the understanding he would get control of Sevco. ( A bit like getting a mortgage in principal before looking at houses ). White then shows, you know, whoever, this statement, where he has a mortgage in place and they sell to him.

White broke the law by using Sevco's own money to buy them ( future season book sales ) BUT is this case not about what happened before that, and not the fact he broke the law by using this method?

Once again to be clear I am only playing devil's advocate ( Findlay ). I still think this is all a big sham and it will fall apart with everyone claiming a win.

He didn't use Sevcos money he used Ticketus money.

[Unknown user]

Your prejudging the outcome here based on 2 days of barely relevant evidence and a load of biased and inaccurate reporting and blogging.

 

There is another way of looking at this, but again its based on heresay at this stage. He bought the club for ?1. Got a promise of money from Ticketus to complete the transaction. Was rather vague with SDM and the board about where the money was coming from to pay the debt. No cared to look too deeply into that at the time or they would have discovered where the money was coming from. They simply didn't ask.No one that I can see in that whole transaction was defrauded, in fact just about everyone gained or broke even, apart from Ticketus who, from what Ive read, deserved everything they got for a complete lack of due diligence done on Craig Whyte and/or Rangers football club and lost due entirely due to their own foolishness and gullibility

He wasn't wasn't rather vague though, he was very specific - he said he had the money to pay the debt off. He got lawyers to make false representation in writing so he could buy a publicly listed company. This isn't "aye he's sound", this is "we can confirm he has 20million lodged with us" when he didn't (whatever the figure was).

 

This isn't based on the case, this is based on known facts that were out before the case started.

[...a bit disco]

Judge getting a bit fecked off it would seem...

 

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman  13m13 minutes ago

More

Slight delay while document located Judge has different page numbers #WhyteTrial

 

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman  15m15 minutes ago

More

Lady Stacey says she is unhappy with the "chaos around her" over documents. Court adjourns

Edited April 25, 2017 by ...a bit disco

[DETTY29]

This is getting a wee bit interesting.

 

Who compiled and who signed off Rangers Uefa license submissions in March, June and September 2011?

 

Surely those reponsible should now be facing an SFA enquiry.

 

Imagine if some of these folk are still involved not only at TRFC but are also on SPFL/SFA committees?

Edited April 25, 2017 by DETTY29

[Mikey1874]

 

Judge getting a bit fecked off it would seem...

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 13m13 minutes ago

 

 

More

 

Slight delay while document located Judge has different page numbers #WhyteTrial

 

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 15m15 minutes ago

 

 

More

 

Lady Stacey says she is unhappy with the "chaos around her" over documents. Court adjourns

Yeah

 

Still adjourned to get the paper work in order

 

Maybe something Rangers could have considered earlier

[Diadora Van Basten]

He wasn't wasn't rather vague though, he was very specific - he said he had the money to pay the debt off. He got lawyers to make false representation in writing so he could buy a publicly listed company. This isn't "aye he's sound", this is "we can confirm he has 20million lodged with us" when he didn't (whatever the figure was).

 

This isn't based on the case, this is based on known facts that were out before the case started.

The lawyers provided a client account statement showing that they held the money to pay off Lloyds which they did.

[Lincon Premier]

He didn't use Sevcos money he used Ticketus money.

He used the future season ticket money that was Sevco's future income. Thus he used Sevco money to buy Sevco.

 

Having said that maybe would be better to call them Rangers as they were still Rangers at that point.

[Unknown user]

The lawyers provided a client account statement showing that they held the money to pay off Lloyds which they did.

They didn't have the money

[Lincon Premier]

He wasn't wasn't rather vague though, he was very specific - he said he had the money to pay the debt off. He got lawyers to make false representation in writing so he could buy a publicly listed company. This isn't "aye he's sound", this is "we can confirm he has 20million lodged with us" when he didn't (whatever the figure was).

 

This isn't based on the case, this is based on known facts that were out before the case started.

By using the scenario I posted earlier ( mortgage ) his solicitors could claim he showed then legal proof he could get the funds as he had an agreement in principal with Ticketus.

Obviously they would not have ?20 million in cash in the safe, and it would only be a piece of paper. Either way White " had " the money from Ticketus as a promissory note so nothing illegal as far as I can see. It's only after the purchase when it became clear he had used future ticket sales to buy the club, that the wrong doing was exposed.

 

I don't know if this scenario is correct, only that this is another way of looking at it.

[Unknown user]

By using the scenario I posted earlier ( mortgage ) his solicitors could claim he showed then legal proof he could get the funds as he had an agreement in principal with Ticketus.

Obviously they would not have ?20 million in cash in the safe, and it would only be a piece of paper. Either way White " had " the money from Ticketus as a promissory note so nothing illegal as far as I can see. It's only after the purchase when it became clear he had used future ticket sales to buy the club, that the wrong doing was exposed.

 

I don't know if this scenario is correct, only that this is another way of looking at it.

The letter from the lawyers didn't say he had access to the cash, it specifically said that he had lodged the funds with them.

[Lincon Premier]

By using the scenario I posted earlier ( mortgage ) his solicitors could claim he showed then legal proof he could get the funds as he had an agreement in principal with Ticketus.

Obviously they would not have ?20 million in cash in the safe, and it would only be a piece of paper. Either way White " had " the money from Ticketus as a promissory note so nothing illegal as far as I can see. It's only after the purchase when it became clear he had used future ticket sales to buy the club, that the wrong doing was exposed.

 

I don't know if this scenario is correct, only that this is another way of looking at it.

I know I am quoting my own post but wanted to add:

 

Maybe SDM told Ticketus he would back White with cash until the deal went through. This could be the reason Ticketus parted with such a large amount with no collateral.

[Lincon Premier]

double post!

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Lincon Premier

[Lincon Premier]

The letter from the lawyers didn't say he had access to the cash, it specifically said that he had lodged the funds with them.

Yes but like I said they would not have the ?20 million in a safe. They would have had a piece of paper stating he had the funds. That would be sufficient for their purposes.

 

( not agruing with you simply trying to explore a different view of how things transpired. ) 

[Unknown user]

Yes but like I said they would not have the ?20 million in a safe. They would have had a piece of paper stating he had the funds. That would be sufficient for their purposes.

 

( not agruing with you simply trying to explore a different view of how things transpired. )

There's our point of departure then, to me lodging the funds surely means transferring them to the lawyers to put in a holding account which they have control over.

I think I'm right in saying that Whyte did actually have 4 million lodged with them, so there is an element of truth to it, which is always the best lie of course.

[I.T.K]

First Tier Tribunal deemed most were legal, 5 I think weren't.

 

Upper Tier Tribunal agreed in principle although asked for a few more to be reviewed.

 

Court of Session in Edinburgh over ruled and advised EBTs on the whole illegal.

 

BDO on behalf of RFC plc (IL) creditors have appealed to UK Supreme Court to over turn Scottish Court of Session decision.

 

So at this moment on the whole illegal, but under final appeal.

 

 

Thanks for info. 

 

 The wee tax case was issue that put them Admin, but issue of big tax case is what pushed them to liquidation. 

[Don Dan]

 

Judge getting a bit fecked off it would seem...

 

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman  13m13 minutes ago

More

Slight delay while document located Judge has different page numbers #WhyteTrial

 

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman  15m15 minutes ago

More

Lady Stacey says she is unhappy with the "chaos around her" over documents. Court adjourns

 

Thats Rangers Finances for you, Utter Chaos!

[Hagar the Horrible]

Going way back after Whyte took over and was being held high by Keef and the MSM as being the home grown oligarch who will catapult Deadco into the upper stratosphere with his off the radar wealth.  I tool it upon myself at the time to start looking him, up (and all of this was posted at the time)  and within an hour and a half there was very little in the way of a cyber footprint, not much appart from companies house, which flagged major alarm bells ringing as nobody upon nobody with his claims can have a mimimal footprint which told me he had as much of his online footprint wiped, and very professionally, which turned out to be true, he paid not long before going public over the Deadco fakeover (sorry takeover) to have his history wiped.  SDM and his people must have been able to do the same????

 

If Whyte walks, then by default SDM knew what he was selling and to whom.  This will come out, but Whyte being found liable does not make SDM innocent either?   But the media are almost certainly incompetent, because very little digging proved he did not have that kind of money so for the media to just come up with the Off the Radar Wealth rather than spending a few more moments getting their headlines right, could easily have had the headline Asset stripper to take over financially sticken Ibrox club, with insurmountable tax fine looming!!!!!  And they would have saved the club from impending certain disaster?  well at least from whyte, but the big tax case was going to kill them off regardless and that is 100% down to SDM!  SDM opened the door to allow a specialist in asset stripping and was only interested in getting this lame duck off his books. 

 

The other thing is the wee tax case was going to go the way of hector, but the bix tax case might (still in appeal) did go their way, so they could have traded out of trouble.  That was the worst case scenario for Whyte because is was evident that Whyte needed than do die to make money and blame somebody else?  Why else would Whye not pay 1p in NIC/PAYE?  all of this was in the public domain yet the MSM still kept sucking from that particular lamb.

 

What have we learned from this?

 

Green stated he would get a CVA reported verbatum by the MSM, a lie as Hector does not do penny in the pound deals, page one on their rule book.

King, ?30m war chest?  aye right

 

Battery Sergeant Major "Shut Up" King, Mr La-de-dah Gunner Taylor, Gunner Parky Park and Gunner Lofty Letham in concert failed to make an offer for the other shares? 

 

yet nobody in the media going after them to protect the other shareholders (fans) the real Ragers men?  they protect the last 4 regimes all worse then the others.  The media are a joke and no wonder their industry is dead?  Just look at Trump, he has by-passed the media and gone straight to Twitter.  his news his way.  The media needs to fight back, there is no Lamb on the menu any more, only bananas

 

Keeping with the aint half hot mum theme

 

Old Hindu proverb, whe you see two eyes staring at you in the dark? it is not always a tiger, it might be two one eyed tigers

[Lincon Premier]

There's our point of departure then, to me lodging the funds surely means transferring them to the lawyers to put in a holding account which they have control over.

I think I'm right in saying that Whyte did actually have 4 million lodged with them, so there is an element of truth to it, which is always the best lie of course.

Don't know enough about the banking structure or financial agreements so either case maybe true. However I doubt his solicitors would put themselves in jeopardy unless they are as dodgy as he appears to be.

Business is a murky world where the rules are easily circumvented by those in the know and of dodgy integrity. 

[Unknown user]

Don't know enough about the banking structure or financial agreements so either case maybe true. However I doubt his solicitors would put themselves in jeopardy unless they are as dodgy as he appears to be.

Business is a murky world where the rules are easily circumvented by those in the know and of dodgy integrity.

I'm not trying to be funny, but it's exactly the point that the solicitors were dodgy and acted in collusion with him. The firm had to pay out millions IIRC and the two guys no longer work there. I'm on my way out but maybe someone can fill in the details of my vague, affected by living in Holland, memories

[DETTY29]

Thanks for info. 

 

 The wee tax case was issue that put them Admin, but issue of big tax case is what pushed them to liquidation. 

I'd say it's a lot more complicated than that.

 

It was the withholding of PAYE/NI (and VAT?) to support working capital that eventually pushed the admin button.

 

It is a surprise considering that HMRC were also chasing Whyte for a 'personal' ?3m - ?4m assessment that they didn't push the admin button earlier however even excluding the BTC the accumulated WTC/PAYE/NI/VAT a totalled c. ?20m meaning that if the BTC had been won / excluded, HMRC still had over 25% of the unsecured creditor pot so could block the CVA and lead to the 'L' btton.

[Don Dan]

Don't know enough about the banking structure or financial agreements so either case maybe true. However I doubt his solicitors would put themselves in jeopardy unless they are as dodgy as he appears to be.

Business is a murky world where the rules are easily circumvented by those in the know and of dodgy integrity. 

4 years ago I paid ?120K cash for a flat. I had to get my solicitor to prove with the bank where the money came from before the purchase was allowed to proceed. I was also questioned by the the Bank when i deposited ?20k cash into my account and had to give a credible reason where I got the cash from. I'm surprised nobody questioned Whyte where he got ?18m from. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Going way back after Whyte took over and was being held high by Keef and the MSM as being the home grown oligarch who will catapult Deadco into the upper stratosphere with his off the radar wealth.  I tool it upon myself at the time to start looking him, up (and all of this was posted at the time)  and within an hour and a half there was very little in the way of a cyber footprint, not much appart from companies house, which flagged major alarm bells ringing as nobody upon nobody with his claims can have a mimimal footprint which told me he had as much of his online footprint wiped, and very professionally, which turned out to be true, he paid not long before going public over the Deadco fakeover (sorry takeover) to have his history wiped.  SDM and his people must have been able to do the same????

 

If Whyte walks, then by default SDM knew what he was selling and to whom.  This will come out, but Whyte being found liable does not make SDM innocent either?   But the media are almost certainly incompetent, because very little digging proved he did not have that kind of money so for the media to just come up with the Off the Radar Wealth rather than spending a few more moments getting their headlines right, could easily have had the headline Asset stripper to take over financially sticken Ibrox club, with insurmountable tax fine looming!!!!!  And they would have saved the club from impending certain disaster?  well at least from whyte, but the big tax case was going to kill them off regardless and that is 100% down to SDM!  SDM opened the door to allow a specialist in asset stripping and was only interested in getting this lame duck off his books. 

 

 

What you could access online is nothing compared to what Murray, King, Lloyds et al could access, they would only have needed to pick up a phone and talk to someone in the city who knew about Whyte's previous history and it wouldn't have mattered how much he'd been able to wipe because people would have known about him, maybe even personally.

[269miles]

What you could access online is nothing compared to what Murray, King, Lloyds et al could access, they would only have needed to pick up a phone and talk to someone in the city who knew about Whyte's previous history and it wouldn't have mattered how much he'd been able to wipe because people would have known about him, maybe even personally.

SDM knew Whyte's old man. He wouldn't need to spend a single minute investigating him. And he didn't. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 years ago I paid ?120K cash for a flat. I had to get my solicitor to prove with the bank where the money came from before the purchase was allowed to proceed. I was also questioned by the the Bank when i deposited ?20k cash into my account and had to give a credible reason where I got the cash from. I'm surprised nobody questioned Whyte where he got ?18m from. 

 

Similar here.

 

I've just bought a house in January, no mortgage, bought it with cash.

 

After a period of time after the process had started, I had to provide documentary evidence to the solicitors that 1) I had the money to start with & 2) More importantly the source of the money, so as to prove that it wasn't the proceeds of crime or was being laundered.

I only needed to transfer the money to the solicitors account a week or so before the sale date.

 

If I had failed to provide satisfactory documentation and evidence to the solicitors then the sale would never have went through.

 

 

Craig Whyte would have had to do the same or similar, I'd imagine.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

SDM knew Whyte's old man. He wouldn't need to spend a single minute investigating him. And he didn't. 

 

So it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that SDM had meet with and or knew Craig Whyte prior to him buying deadco?

[Paolo]

He didn't use Sevcos money he used Ticketus money.

Which was mortgaged against Sevco's assets (the season tickets).

[DETTY29]

4 years ago I paid ?120K cash for a flat. I had to get my solicitor to prove with the bank where the money came from before the purchase was allowed to proceed. I was also questioned by the the Bank when i deposited ?20k cash into my account and had to give a credible reason where I got the cash from. I'm surprised nobody questioned Whyte where he got ?18m from. 

And if Whyte had said to Lloyds I'm borrowing ?24m from a ticket agency to fund the purchase of a business I will 100% own, all it means is that I'll have to reduce costs / increase revenue by ?6m each year and my goalie is easily worth ?6m, I can't see why Lloyds would care unless they are concerned this is a crime.  It's certainly not Money Laundering.

 

I think in your scenario your lawyers and bank are making sure you haven't got the funds from proceeds of crime.  If however you were buying the flat at ?240k and were putting down ?120k and borrowing the ?120k from the bank, then they would want to know from a credit risk perspective too.

 

Lloyds deal was with Rangers/Murray/MG but I'm not so sure how far back a financial institution would need to go back to identify initial source of funds.

[jambovambo]

James Doleman? @jamesdoleman 6m6 minutes ago

 

 

Findlay "Lloyd's severed all links with Rangers and said 'don't come back''" McIntyre "effectively, yes"

[DETTY29]

@jamesdoleman 13m13 minutes ago

Email from Lloyd's to McIntyre, 9 May 2011, just as sale is being completed. Loan and security transferred to Wavetower. ?15m loan cancelled

 

@jamesdoleman

"All bank accounts across the group must be kept in credit, this must be completed today" "Brutal stuff, Findlay suggests

 

@jamesdoleman

All electronic transfers canceled, including BACS system used to pay salaries

 

@jamesdoleman

Findlay "Lloyd's severed all links with Rangers and said 'don't come back''" McIntyre "effectively, yes"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited April 25, 2017 by DETTY29

[269miles]

Yes, exactly, Lloyds' only concern would have been that the money was legal, they wouldn't have cared less if Whyte had taken out a massive wonga style loan, not their problem, that's Whyte's problem, the club could have folded a month or two later, not Lloyds problem as they have been paid off.

 

David Murray and the Rangers board including one David Cunningham King on the other hand had or should have had a completely different outlook concerning the future of the club.

And here is where I can not get my head around why they sold the club to Whyte, everybody knew Craig Whyte was as dodgy as a ?7 note, he was setting off red flags here there and everywhere, Lloyds would have known this and so you would think David Murray and the Rangers board as well, they're business men they would have access to all manner of inside information about Craig Whyte and his previous business dealings, yet they still sold the club to him.

That's what I can't understand, why did proper Rangers men sell the club to someone with the previous history like Craig Whyte had, surely they could have said no we're not selling to him.

Rangers had no future. SDM knew it. They already had massive debts and the tax bills were coming down the track. His personal HBOS piggy bank had been reigned in - no more handouts. THIS bank was hell bent on getting it's money back. The club had effectively been in administration for years but the media and the SFA just ignored that. 

 

The club was facing extinction - it was just a matter of time and SDM knew it. IMO, he wanted out of Rangers otherwise he would be the captain that went down with his ship.This is after all he had said and done at Rangers - he wanted to destroy Celtic but all he did was destroy Rangers. He needed to get out , at any price. 

 

SDM had absolute power at Ibrox and no one questioned anything he said or did - certainly not the media.

 

King a Rangers man ? He is/was a chancer. 

 

Everyone knew what was going to happen to Rangers and they knew what kind of character Whyte was (helped by the fact he lived far away in Monaco). 

[tweegy]

And if Whyte had said to Lloyds I'm borrowing ?24m from a ticket agency to fund the purchase of a business I will 100% own, all it means is that I'll have to reduce costs / increase revenue by ?6m each year and my goalie is easily worth ?6m, I can't see why Lloyds would care unless they are concerned this is a crime. It's certainly not Money Laundering.

 

I think in your scenario your lawyers and bank are making sure you haven't got the funds from proceeds of crime. If however you were buying the flat at ?240k and were putting down ?120k and borrowing the ?120k from the bank, then they would want to know from a credit risk perspective too.

 

Lloyds deal was with Rangers/Murray/MG but I'm not so sure how far back a financial institution would need to go back to identify initial source of funds.

As far as Lloyd's are concerned re money laundering, ticketus are a legitimate source of funds.

As far as the sale and David Murray is concerned, ticketus is not a legitimate source of funds as it is using the company's own funds to purchase the company which is illegal.

It was a condition of sale that whyte paid Lloyd's.

 

I think what may be the crux of the matter here is whether paying off a companies debts with the companies monies as a condition of sale constitutes purchasing the club with its own money.

 

Im of the opinion that DM seems to have failed in his fiduciary duties.

[Unknown user]

Don't know enough about the banking structure or financial agreements so either case maybe true. However I doubt his solicitors would put themselves in jeopardy unless they are as dodgy as he appears to be.

Business is a murky world where the rules are easily circumvented by those in the know and of dodgy integrity.

There are a few stories about it if you Google Collyer Bristow Craig Whyte. This one outlines the allegations, old rangers' administrators were suing them for professional negligence to the tune of 50 million but settled for 24.

The main guy in question, Gary Withey, was a corporate finance partner at Collyer Bristow, AND company secretary at Rangers, and was arrested for his part in the conspiracy.

 

https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/online/full-extent-of-rangers-fc-claims-against-collyer-bristow-laid-bare/

Edited April 25, 2017 by Smithee

[jambovambo]

Seen this list of Sevco players contracts that started floating about earlier today  (maybe yesterday) ?

 

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=wmcxaq&s=9#.WP88JO-GPcs

[marshallschunkychicken]

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here, but was it not the case that the sale of the club was for ?1 and the ?18m related to the club's debt?

 

Under those circumstances, he has personally paid the ?1 for control, then paid off the CLUB'S debt by obtaining an advance on the CLUB'S income. Is that not in effect what happened?

[Unknown user]

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here, but was it not the case that the sale of the club was for ?1 and the ?18m related to the club's debt?

 

Under those circumstances, he has personally paid the ?1 for control, then paid off the CLUB'S debt by obtaining an advance on the CLUB'S income. Is that not in effect what happened?

Pretty much, the sticking point is that he said he was going to use his money to pay the debt, but used borrowings from the club instead

[Rods]

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here, but was it not the case that the sale of the club was for ?1 and the ?18m related to the club's debt?

 

Under those circumstances, he has personally paid the ?1 for control, then paid off the CLUB'S debt by obtaining an advance on the CLUB'S income. Is that not in effect what happened?

 

This is what I think Finlay will say eventually and Whyte will have evidence of SDM telling him to do this very thing. I could be wrong though.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Pretty much, the sticking point is that he said he was going to use his money to pay the debt, but used borrowings from the club instead

But the point there is that Lloyds didn't give a flying one, they wanted out of Dodge and they just wanted paid. Whyte lied but lying isn't in itself fraudulent.