The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Ignorance is bliss it seems for you

 

One day you will learn but until then it's up to me to guide you and others in realities not fantasies.

 

Whyte's issue is the question of whether he misled others as to where the funds came from when asked but still try and deflect all you want ..if someone tells a lie re source of funds that is the issue.. if the money is in an account and has been sourced legally there is no issue but you don't get investigated as to the source when you buy a house FOR EXAMPLE.

It was your shite analogy that you brought up.

 

If you said that the bank wanted proof of funds to pay them what they were owed, you'd have a point. The truth is, Lloyds didn't care as long as they got their money back. Murray was an irrelevance.

[Unknown user]

I don't get it, if nothing else hasn't it been shown that he did at least break company law by falsely making legal declarations that he had funds when he didn't?

[wibble]

No wonder Whytey looked so smug. He already had told the establishment how he would drag their names through the mud and they'd agreed not to put forward a viable case, so as to avoid any defence being made.

Hats off to the wee billionaire.

 

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

[hearts related nickname]

It's blatantly obvious. Murray didn't care who bought the club as long as he didn't take the fall for the inevitable administration/liquidation. Other directors cashed in big time on the deal, did they care who the sale went to?

Murray needed a patsie. Those that are culpable have been questioned but have not yet been charged

[buzzbomb1958]

Come on Whytie,Come on Whytie

[Mikey1874]

Case is back in court but it's legal chat nothing yet reported.

[Footballfirst]

Case is back in court but it's legal chat nothing yet reported.

JJ has posted an ?exclusive? about what is apparently happening. If reporting restrictions mean that nothing can be reported from court while the jury isn?t present, then someone who has been in court has told him, or he has been in court himself.

[jambovambo]

JJ has posted an ?exclusive? about what is apparently happening. If reporting restrictions mean that nothing can be reported from court while the jury isn?t present, then someone who has been in court has told him, or he has been in court himself.

Surely John James is sailing very close to the legal wind with some of the stuff he says?

[Mikey1874]

Defence are not calling witnesses

[Mikey1874]

Crown will give closing speech summing up the prosecution case tomorrow

 

Defence will follow on Friday

 

Judge will then sum up and give any advise re law etc to jury on Monday

Edited May 31, 2017 by Mikey1874

[The Gasman]

Defence are not calling witnesses

Seems rather strange, unless DF is worried that under cross examination they may have to say something which might drop Whyte right in the clart. Edited May 31, 2017 by The Gasman

[Mikey1874]

Seems rather strange, unless DF is worried that under cross examination they may have to say something which might drop Whyte right in the clart.

I think the prosecution witnesses put in a pretty reasonable defence

[Hagar the Horrible]

Seems rather strange, unless DF is worried that under cross examination they may have to say something which might drop Whyte right in the clart.

To be fair, I dont think the procecution have done enough,  if they had then perhaps DF would have called some witnesses but that might have backfired, but as it stands, the Crown might think they have just done enough, DF will feel its touch and go, and even mildly confident, but lets see what the closing speaches have to offer, and if M'Lady gives any directions on a legal basis for the jury to make a decision.  Still Monday will be  a big day? 

 

So what next when is the Lying King up again???

[BelgeJambo]

Surely if DF wasn't confident of an acquittal, he would be calling some witnesses to strengthen their case

[Hagar the Horrible]

Surely if DF wasn't confident of an acquittal, he would be calling some witnesses to strengthen their case

I think its more of a game of poker than that, he has just upped the anti with a pair of two's, and is now bidding check?  lets now see if the AD do have a hand? 

 

I still think DF wont gamble on any witnesses when its down to the AD to prove guilt not CW to prove his innocence?   This will be decided on a technicality now.  DF is just playing the hand he has been given?

[Don Dan]

No matter what the outcome, theres a few people got some uncomfortable questions to answer from the evidence heard. Will anyone be brave enough to hunt down Regan et al?

[buzzbomb1958]

No matter what the outcome, theres a few people got some uncomfortable questions to answer from the evidence heard. Will anyone be brave enough to hunt down Regan et al?

Regan is probably dodging e-mails as we speak but these shisters will come out smelling of roses until some journo with integrity (there is a new concept)has the balls to ask the questions we want answers to.I think hell will freeze over first Edited May 31, 2017 by buzzbomb1958

[Don Dan]

Regan is probably dodging e-mails as we speak but these shisters will come out smelling of roses until some journo with integrity (there is a new concept)has the balls to ask the questions we want answers to.I think hell will freeze over first

Sadly I think you're right.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RobNox]

I think its more of a game of poker than that, he has just upped the anti with a pair of two's, and is now bidding check?  lets now see if the AD do have a hand? 

 

I still think DF wont gamble on any witnesses when its down to the AD to prove guilt not CW to prove his innocence?   This will be decided on a technicality now.  DF is just playing the hand he has been given?

To further your analogy, it seems that the prosecutor is sitting on 9,3 off suit, and is low on chips.

[269miles]

It's blatantly obvious. Murray didn't care who bought the club as long as he didn't take the fall for the inevitable administration/liquidation. Other directors cashed in big time on the deal, did they care who the sale went to?

Murray needed a patsie. Those that are culpable have been questioned but have not yet been charged

 

 

 

...it was sold and Lloyds were happy (cos their debts were repaid by Rangers as part of the sale) and he got his hands on the family  business again.

 

That's - I think - what Findlay is saying. 

 

It was nothing to do with Rangers dying/surviving , it was all about getting rid of it.

 

SDM got the family business back and it cost CW ?1 to buy Rangers. He wasn't risking much if HMRC decided to  take Rangers down as he had no skin in the game.

 

Only question is - what did CW actually gain from the deal ? He had to get something for the effort he put in. Was he paid by SDM ? 

 

And according to JJ - Sevco pays ?750k per year in rent - to whom ? Whytey ? 

Edited May 31, 2017 by 269miles

[socrates82]

It's blatantly obvious. Murray didn't care who bought the club as long as he didn't take the fall for the inevitable administration/liquidation. Other directors cashed in big time on the deal, did they care who the sale went to?

Murray needed a patsie. Those that are culpable have been questioned but have not yet been charged

 

Murray has had such an easy ride from the media though.

 

I can't think of one genuinely critical article, especially when you compare it with the stick Romanov got for similarly driving a club into the ground through poor financial mismanagement and worse.

 

All that succulent lamb did the trick. Not many of our journalists came out of the Rangers thing looking very good.

[Dunks]

 

And according to JJ - Sevco pays ?750k per year in rent - to whom ? Whytey ? 

 

Scrap metal dealer down the Lancashire coast. 

 

Apparently

[hearts related nickname]

Murray has had such an easy ride from the media though.

 

I can't think of one genuinely critical article, especially when you compare it with the stick Romanov got for similarly driving a club into the ground through poor financial mismanagement and worse.

 

All that succulent lamb did the trick. Not many of our journalists came out of the Rangers thing looking very good.

That's spot on. And even since the truths have come out in the trial there hasn't been one piece criticising him, even though there is a lot to criticise. Perhaps once the verdict is given.

 

It's staggering the level of complicity in all of it from the media to the SFA. One of the biggest scandals in Scottish football history just swept under the carpet. The corpse of it being observed in morbid curiosity.

[Hagar the Horrible]

The AD started his closing speach now, with going over a few house rules, a bit like an air hostess doing the safety demo,  this might be painful? 

[Mikey1874]

It's all for the jury

[Hagar the Horrible]

James Doleman tweets, and some thoughts:

 

AD "There is no evidence the Ticketus agreement was ever disclosed to Murray"

Q. How else did Whyte know of Ticketus?????

AD "Mr Whyte misrepresented to Murray he had funds available on 6 May..a dishonest representation"

True?Keef said he had off the radar funds

Adds the ?24 million from Ticketus also did not belong to Whyte on 6 May , he has no right to it at all

Q. Who does it belong to then?

AD says Murray would not have sold Rangers to Whyte if they had known his source of funds "That is the fraud"

This is the reason Whyte is in court?  But SDM would have sold the club to Celtic for the ?1,  oh and we all knew?

 

AD case is not about events after Whyte bought the club: "The allegation he brought the club to its knees is nothing to do with this case

True SDM, Whyte, Green and Now King have all done that, SDM was the best/worst at it depending on your point of view????

AD "This was not simply the payment of a pound"

That pound should be put in the Football Museum for us all to gaze in wonder

 

AD "Craig Whyte bought Rangers without using a single penny of his own money."

Ehhh DUH

AD "This trial is not a public inquiry into the corporate finances of Rangers Football Club."

It should be!!!!!

Reminds the jury Murray gave evidence he would not have done the deal if he had known about Ticketus being involved

FFS really? 

AD "What Whyte did could have been legitimate" if he did the Ticketus deal after he owned the club.

This is the crux of the matter but has the crown done enough to prove that?  Mibbies aye?

AD "Mr Whyte took active steps to ensure Ticketus deal was not revealed" any Murray investigation would not have discovered it.

True, But Murray also hid the Tax cases too, to a point

AD :The bank wanted out of football generally and Rangers in particular..no suggestion though that club was going bust."

 

Well apart from failing to pay the wee tax case which was peanuts, and you have to ask why? The state of the stadium, not a sausage spent on it?  and the big tax case which was terminal, but apart from that, nope no reason they were going bust!!!  Bejeesus, SDM was duped??.hmmmmm

 

Lets see what DF says about it, Saint David even though he did not disclose everything

[BelgeJambo]

I have a feeling that Findlay is going to rip this closing speech of the AD to shreds when he closes for the defence.

[Rods]

I was actually thinking there is no way that Whyte could get found guilty but after this morning's chat from the AD I think it is quite cut and dry.

[kingdannyb]

AD suggests "Mr Whyte knew what he was doing"

Says case is simple "Craig Whyte deceived Murray, used assets of club to buy it"

Court adjourns. Donald Findlay to make his speech for the defence tomorrow at 10am

Edited June 1, 2017 by kingdannyb

[kila]

Thanks to all who post updates in this thread  

[Coburg Hearts]

I was actually thinking there is no way that Whyte could get found guilty but after this morning's chat from the AD I think it is quite cut and dry.

Those were my exact thoughts too, but after DF addresses the jury tomorrow we'll probably be thinking Whyte is whiter than white haha

[Hagar the Horrible]

Those were my exact thoughts too, but after DF addresses the jury tomorrow we'll probably be thinking Whyte is whiter than white haha

On a technicallity Whye according to the AD broke the law, using money loaned to Rangers from Ticketus on future ticket sales, which he used to buy the club?  it is illegal to use its own resources? if he had done that after he took over? no problem, he was free to rip the erse out the whole shooting match?  Its down to the jury to decide that?  DF is now going to convice the jury, that SDM did know about the deal and just wanted out of dodge ASAP,  Would that still be illegal IF the seller knew that its own resouces were to fund the deal?

 

I still dont get this point and it will now never be answered:

 

"How can it be good faith when you actively conceal the details..notes if you sell future season tickets "you run out of money at some point, "

 

So why did Ticketus part with that amount of money?  Even if it was given to Rangers first rather than Whyte,  how in gods good name were they supposed to get any working capital from?  That would be like giving a junkie ?100 for food and the promise he would pay back ?200 over the next 2 years? 

 

I have an overdraft limit, the bank monitors it closly, I can extend it short term but i have to prove i have more coming in than going out to cover it?  even with a bank loan i still have to prove i will pay it back.

 

 

But sadly what we wont get out of this is? wherez ra deedz

[Unknown user]

On a technicallity Whye according to the AD broke the law, using money loaned to Rangers from Ticketus on future ticket sales, which he used to buy the club? it is illegal to use its own resources? if he had done that after he took over? no problem, he was free to rip the erse out the whole shooting match? Its down to the jury to decide that? DF is now going to convice the jury, that SDM did know about the deal and just wanted out of dodge ASAP, Would that still be illegal IF the seller knew that its own resouces were to fund the deal?

 

I still dont get this point and it will now never be answered:

 

"How can it be good faith when you actively conceal the details..notes if you sell future season tickets "you run out of money at some point, "

 

So why did Ticketus part with that amount of money? Even if it was given to Rangers first rather than Whyte, how in gods good name were they supposed to get any working capital from? That would be like giving a junkie ?100 for food and the promise he would pay back ?200 over the next 2 years?

 

I have an overdraft limit, the bank monitors it closly, I can extend it short term but i have to prove i have more coming in than going out to cover it? even with a bank loan i still have to prove i will pay it back.

 

 

But sadly what we wont get out of this is? wherez ra deedz

Murray isn't on trial here.

 

It's not about whether leveraged deals are legal, it's about whether Whyte broke the law in legally declaring he had x millions available when he didn't, and then getting the club to borrow the money he said he personally had - the debt repayment was meant to come from him, not the club.

 

edit - the answer to your financial questions can all be answered with three words - Champions League Money

Edited June 1, 2017 by Smithee

[Glamorgan Jambo]

I thought he sold the season tickets rather than borrowing against them.

[Diadora Van Basten]

I think the key piece of evidence was that Rangers failed to do any due diligence on Craig Whyte which suggests they didn't really care.

[CJGJ]

I think the key piece of evidence was that Rangers failed to do any due diligence on Craig Whyte which suggests they didn't really care.

Whilst that could be true it doesn't matter a jot re this case

[Mikey1874]

I think the key piece of evidence was that Rangers failed to do any due diligence on Craig Whyte which suggests they didn't really care.

Agree

 

The key revelation

 

Not that that necessarily helps Craig Whyte

[socrates82]

Regan is probably dodging e-mails as we speak but these shisters will come out smelling of roses until some journo with integrity (there is a new concept)has the balls to ask the questions we want answers to.I think hell will freeze over first

 

Is Regan still around? And Doncaster? They've been awfy quiet compared to when Rangers were in trouble. I guess all is now rosy in Scottish football again.

[buzzbomb1958]

Imagine the fall out if the Govan one goes free,book,movie and the beginning of the end for Regan,Doncaster et al

[Mikey1874]

Wrong thread

 

Meantime good luck tomorrow Mr Findlay

Edited June 1, 2017 by Mikey1874

[tweegy]

So leaving aside the excitement over some negative posters losing credibility.

 

I'm pleased there is a clear performance related system rewarding players. That is very encouraging. While I can ignore most of the negativity on here the chat about pay and contracts the last 2 years has bothered me.

 

I hope this encourages the youngsters.

 

It also sadly highlights the limits of the club in the modern era. Fair enough. It's not new. Neil McCann went to Rangers for ?1 million nearly 20 years ago. But Jamie Walker could have led this team for 2 or 3 years. But is leaving. Is this the future? The best we can do?

Wrong thread?

[Mikey1874]

Wrong thread?

Yeah

 

Cheers

[sairyinthat]

Surely if DF wasn't confident of an acquittal, he would be calling some witnesses to strengthen their case

daren't Prosecutor would be drooling at the mouth and big Donald knows it

[Tommy Brown]

what do posters want or expect here. I think there will be a lot of seetheand disappointment either way.

 

Wee Craigy goes to the pokey - Huns rejoice, Murray was duped, all is brushed back under the carpet. History is tarnished, they found their scapegoat for going down the pan.

We all know different.

 

We Craigy is found not guilty - Huns become more bitter, law is an ass. all is brushed back under the carpet. No point in going over it all again, Rangers are back where they belong. Murray gave them great CL nights and loads of trophies (most successful club side in the world, don't you know.

 

Been enjoyable getting their dirty washing aired, but only some. SMSM won't challenge any findings, Rangers are back where they belong (all be it, a country mile behind the tims)

 

I am absolutely sick of Scottish football.

[newbie]

"Murray gave them great CL nights and loads of trophies (most successful club side in the world, don't you know"

 

This claim always amuses me. If you follow the logic, the Ferret & Fox Inn would be deemed more successful than Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Bayern Munich etc because it had won the Scunthorpe & District Pub League a record 55 times. It's not really comparing like with like, but try telling that to your average deluded Rangers* fan who can't even grasp the simple fact that they let their club die. 

[BelgeJambo]

Anything happening with Saaaaargent Major King and his concert party?

[reaths17]

whyte is going to jail, this trial was about whether whyte used illegal means to buy rangers and the borrowing against the companies assets is illegal.

 

whether or not whyte was duped by murray is irrelevant, whether murray never carried out a chairman/owners due diligence is irrelevant.

 

what we all wanted to hear, was skirted around unfortunately, we would now need whyte to spill the beans but with this having looked like a set up from the beginning (murray needing a patsy, whyte being a patsy for hire) I doubt we will get to the truth from this trial.

[c41rns]

.

[Mysterion]

Given some of the evidence i wonder if Whyte may find himself in a position to sue David Murray.

 

There's been enough said by witnesses to demonstrate Murray wasn't acting in the best interests of Rangers Version1 by not paying the wee tax case.

[Mysterion]

"Murray gave them great CL nights and loads of trophies (most successful club side in the world, don't you know"

 

This claim always amuses me. If you follow the logic, the Ferret & Fox Inn would be deemed more successful than Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Bayern Munich etc because it had won the Scunthorpe & District Pub League a record 55 times. It's not really comparing like with like, but try telling that to your average deluded Rangers* fan who can't even grasp the simple fact that they let their club die.

The difference is the pub league title isn't an officially recognised title by the major football authorities.

 

This claim is something the Sevco fans love to harp on about. The negative of them losing that claim is that Celtic are the next likely team to step up and claim that title.