Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[DarlingtonHibee]

Can I ask a stupid question, what is this costing the tax payer, whyte probably on legal aid?

[Moulin Yarns]

Rest of morning session

Email 26 October 2010, Withey email toStuart MacLean Confirms Liberty Capital have funds to complete purchase

AD What basis for this Withey "I wouldhave been told...you have to trust your client"

Withey: "We are saying we have theability to produce the funds" AD "That's not what it says"

Withey "The deal was the pound and thebank debt"

AD "There was a persistence fromMurray that you had the money?"

Withey "They didn't want theembarrassment of the deal not completing....They realised we had to get thefinancing in place

Withey "I got, I guess a thousand emails"Advocate Depute "I know, we've seen them"

Email, Withey confirms he has £27.5m inclient account" AD is that true? Withey "I believed it was held inclient account, I got that wrong

Witness "I couldn't give comfort toMurray group unless I got comfort. Comes back the the trust issue

If I didn't trust my client I would havewalked away" (there is that walkingaway again J )

Friday 6 May 2011, deal completed in EdinburghWithey says

Adds "Rangers were playing Celtic atthe weekend and Murray wanted to say we had a new owner"

Withey: "We'd all had enough of it, wewere all tired and wanted it to go away"

Withey "The deal was complete and thepound was paid across, the physical one pound for the shares"

Withey says Takeover​ panel didn't ruleuntil 6pm. Says offered a bankers draft to Murray but this was rejected as took3 days to clear

Withey "I was sure I could completethe Ticketus deal on the Friday, but I ran out of time"

Says would need a board meeting but"would just be Craig Whyte and Phill Betts"

AD asks if there was a commitment to paythe bank debt? Withey "Yes, and we did"

AD "The money used was the Ticketusmoney" Withey "Yes"

Withey: "What Ticketus want Ticketusget, if they wanted me to dance around naked I would have done it"

Withey "Ticketus were aware theirmoney was to be used to pay off the bank debt."

Judge "I know we are all feeling a bit unwell, thereare lots of coughs and splutters"

Withey "Am I speaking loudly enough?" LadyStacey "Not really, to be frank"

Withey agrees that Whyte could not sellseats to Ticketus until he was the owner of Rangers

LUNCH

[vincipernoi]

Can I ask a stupid question, what is this costing the tax payer, whyte probably on legal aid?

nah can't be on legal aid - I heard that his wealth is off the radar

[Jack]

Maybe there's a reason he is an Ex solicitor :wink:

I thought it was odd when you noted "The Advocate Depute is questioning formerlawyer Gary Withey"

I assumed what was meant was the former lawyer of Craig Whyte.

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought it was odd when you noted "The Advocate Depute is questioning formerlawyer Gary Withey"

I assumed what was meant was the former lawyer of Craig Whyte.

According to this, he is still a solicitor.

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/152807.article

He resigned from Collyer Bristow, though, who ended up paying £24m to the Oldco's liquidators.

[Moulin Yarns]

Last for today

Advocate Depute continues hiscross-examination of former solicitor Gary Withey

AD "did you have a missing link,Rangers got the Ticketus money but Wavetower had to pay the bank?"

Withey "This was missed by everyoneuntil the Monday, Ticketus missed it too"

AD "But you were corporatelawyer" Withey "I was under resourced

AD "What were you being paidfor?" Withey agrees he missed key clause in agreement. "Was beingworked on by my assistant"

AD: "You took your fee however"Withey: "3 months later" AD: "Is your answer yes" Withey:"Yes" AD: "You took your fee however" Withey: "3months later" AD: "Is your answer yes" Withey: "Yes"

9 May 2011 minutes of a Rangers boardmeeting in London Craig Whyte and Phillip Betts

Purpose was to authorise the Ticketusagreement started from 2011, lasted until 2015. Was passed.

AD "Did you have a plan on how thingswere to work, a timetable?" Withey "I don't think so"

Advocate Depute shows Withey email from himincluding timetable Withey says is a "draft timetable"

Advocate Depute ends Donald Findlay QCrises to cross-examine for the defence.

DF "You say anything you did had to beauthorised by the client, that is a gross overstatement"

Phone rings in court. Findlay asks whoeverhas it to turn it off or leave

Findlay asks when is a deal completed?Withey: "When contracts signed and exchanged."

DF "And you could hand the contract tome and I could..*rips up piece of paper* adds "It's when the deal iscompleted"

DF "Who was desperate to complete thisdeal" Withey "Murray"

DF "A client has to be able to trusthis lawyer, especially on technical details"

DF suggests the only way to pay"immediately" is to hand over a "suitcase full of cash"

Cheque takes time to clear, electronictransfer can "take a weekend" if bank shut on a Friday night.

Would we say "that's the whole dealnullified, let's all go home" Suggests "immediately" means"as soon as practicable"

Findlay asks if Ticketus was a secretWithey, "was impossible to keep a secret"

DF "Worst kept secret in history"

Court then adjourned. No proceedingstomorrow, witness asked to return Monday, 10am




Until Next Week.

[Moulin Yarns]

And we are back.

sit back and get the popcorn out


Proceedings resume at 10.05 with defenceAdvocate Donald Findlay QC continuing his cross examination of Crown WitnessGary Withey

Witness says he acted as an advisor toHeart of Midlothian at flotation, also Crystal Palace

Findlay "Most football clubs arelimited companies, larger ones are public limited companies"

Findlay "do you have to tell thetakeover panel what you are doing or does it find out through divineintervention?"

Withey says this is done through thecorporate adviser, "the takeover panel doesnt like dealing withlawyers"

Withey on the Albion car park: "It wasa very odd sale and leaseback agreement."

Withey says a purchaser would usuallydisclose source of finance in takeover document Seller would also makedisclosure.

Withey says takeover panel should have beeninformed about Ticketus finance for Whyte's Rangers' bid.

"I told My Whyte he had no choice, itwasn't his decision to make..the takeover rules mean you had to disclose yourfinancing"

Withey agrees the seller of Rangers wouldalso have access to the Ticketus finance information if it was asked for

Findlay "from 2010 Mr Whyte was clearthe Ticketus money would be used to pay off the bank debt owed to Lloyds"

Withey on Ticketus deal "more than 80people knew about it"

Findlay "A secretary in London mightbe a Rangers supporter..is a world-wide brand..it would spread quickly'

Withey says David Grier knew about theTicketus deal, Findlay "are you saying he lied to a judge?"

Withey adds that Duff and Phelps were alsoaware of Ticketus deal,

Findlay asks if Murray International knewabout Ticketus deal? Withey "I dont know"

Withey says he would confirm a client'sidentity with: "A passport and a utility bill."

Withey says modern takeover "datarooms" are usually virtual environments that update automatically.

This was a box cupboard with a small deskand 6 files."

Withey says there were only 5 files in thedata room: "for a club that's been going for over 100 years, I wasshocked"

Witness says there was nothing in the dataroom about the "small tax case" only found out about it later.

"I was told it was always in the dataroom, but it wasn't"

Withey "the big tax case seemed toswamp everything in the end, but it wasn't in the data room"

Withey: "I told Mr Whyte he would bemad to go ahead with this transaction and he should walk away"

Withey says Andrew Ellis was "involvedin the transaction throughout"

Witness says reference in letter to "aUK financial institution" did not mean a bank: "A bank is called abank"

Deal at this point was £5.5m for shares and£27m for the bank Findlay "no tax case? no money for stadium falling tobits?"

Withey says at time of letter (November2010) he didn't know about the small tax case




More to follow….

[CyberSauzee]

Findlay "Most football clubs arelimited companies, larger ones are public limited companies"

A real scunner to the Huns who keep saying that the football club is separate from the limited company. To everyone else, including Findlay, they're one and the same.

[Seveno]

I had to read the bit about the data room three times before I believed my eyes. The amount of information for any sizeable company would keep a small team busy for weeks.

[Jack Hackett]

I had to read the bit about the data room three times before I believed my eyes. The amount of information for any sizeable company would keep a small team busy for weeks.

My next question for the witness would be

"Was there a paper shredder in the room"?

[Moulin Yarns]

The gift that keeps on giving



Withey says around £24m borrowed fromTicketus, was kept in a deposit account" Could only be released if bothparties authorised it.

Findlay Asks about 3rd party funding Witheysays is very common adds "They don't like to use their own money

Findlay on 3rd party funding "it's arisk" Withey "look at Lehman brothers"

Findlay shows court Share PurchaseAgreement between Murray and Whyte, it mentions "third party funding"

Findlay How could a lawyer not be aware ofthat means?" Withey "They could just ask, 'who is it?" Findlay"Did they?' Withey "No"

Withey continues "I was staggered thatthey didn't..they deleted the line [in the agreement] asking about thefunding"

Findlay says of mention of 3rd partyfunding in the agreement "it's not going to go away, although some peoplemight like it to."

Findlay says Murray Group"recommended" Ticketus to him for working capital

Withey says Murray Group told him: "Why not useTicketus, we use them all the time, they're really good."

Withey says he doubts anyone ever handedover a physical pound to pay for the shares. Findlay: "They could haveused it as a souvenir"

Withey says intention was to transfer moneyon Friday but didn't happen. Lloyds charged "interest over the weekend,which was a bit cheeky"

Findlay "Was it Mr Whyte's fault themoney wasn't paid in the Friday?" Withey "It was nothing to do withhim" Findlay "was a glitch"

[Moulin Yarns]

Witness agrees Ticketus was aware loan wasto be used to pay back the bank debt Says "We were trying to get the samedeal as the club got"

Findlay asks what is wrong legally with acompany going to a third party and making an agreement subject to taking overanother company

Withey "I don't see anything wrongwith it"

Findlay: if Murray wanted a condition thatthe bank was paid by purchasers own funds he could have put that in agreement?

Withey "They could do what they wanted

Withey says clause in Share PurchaseAgreement about spending £5m a year on players was "window dressing"

Adds "It was an intention" notlegally enforceable.

Findlay "this is valuelessnonsense" Withey "it was very peculiar

Findlay on the £1.7m bill for the stadium"football was played the next season, something must have been done"

Withey "I believe they got a safetycertificate"

Withey says non-embarrassment clause was inagreement to avoid bad publicity for Murray

Findlay suggests a budget of £5m forplayers would be as useful as "a plaster on a slash wound" I thought I misread that one

Findlay "These are undertakings fromMr Whyte to Mr Whyte" as he controlled the company "he asks himselffor the money?"

Withey on the agreement "I've neverseen anything like it before, it didn't make any sense."

[grunt]

Witness agrees Ticketus was aware loan wasto be used to pay back the bank debt Says "We were trying to get the samedeal as the club got"

Findlay asks what is wrong legally with acompany going to a third party and making an agreement subject to taking overanother company

Withey "I don't see anything wrongwith it"
Isn't this financial assistance? I though that Whyte was charged with this, but there seems very little discussion about it.
And I thought Withey was a lawyer. Shouldn't he know this stuff?

[hibs0666]

Isn't this financial assistance? I though that Whyte was charged with this, but there seems very little discussion about it.
And I thought Withey was a lawyer. Shouldn't he know this stuff?

I thought the Glasers SD did a similar thing when acquiring man utd?

[Seveno]

I thought the Glasers SD did a similar thing when acquiring man utd?

Good point. The Glasers borrowed heavily to buy Man U and then transferred the debt into the company. I think that Man U are still paying it off.

It has been a standard way for Venture Capitalists to buy companies and then saddle them with debt. They often try to reduce the debt by selling the acquisitions property and then leasing it back.

[Deansy]

Findlay on the £1.7m bill for the stadium"football was played the next season, something must have been done"

Withey "I believe they got a safety-certificate"


Was Withey winking and making 'Nudge-nudge' geatures when giving this reply ??. Straight from 'something must have been done' to 'I believe they got a safety-certificate' ??. No explanation in between the question and the answer of what, if any, work (and costs) that was carried out to see that the safety-certificate was given ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Good point. The Glasers borrowed heavily to buy Man U and then transferred the debt into the company. I think that Man U are still paying it off.

It has been a standard way for Venture Capitalists to buy companies and then saddle them with debt. They often try to reduce the debt by selling the acquisitions property and then leasing it back.
But in their case they didn't pretend to the lenders that they were Man U., which is what CW is accused of doing.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

Good point. The Glasers borrowed heavily to buy Man U and then transferred the debt into the company. I think that Man U are still paying it off.

It has been a standard way for Venture Capitalists to buy companies and then saddle them with debt. They often try to reduce the debt by selling the acquisitions property and then leasing it back.


You are not allowed the use a company's own assets to fund your takeover bid though. Effectively, this is what Whyte did.

[greenginger]

You are not allowed the use a company's own assets to fund your takeover bid though. Effectively, this is what Whyte did.


The purchase price was £1.

The Ticketus deal just moved the existing company debt from the bank to another lender.

[brog]

You are not allowed the use a company's own assets to fund your takeover bid though. Effectively, this is what Whyte did.

Effectively that's what the Glazers did as well. About 50% of their takeover bid was funded by loans secured against Man U assets. And it was about 10 times the sum that wee Craigie "borrowed".

[lapsedhibee]

Effectively that's what the Glazers did as well. About 50% of their takeover bid was funded by loans secured against Man U assets. And it was about 10 times the sum that wee Craigie "borrowed".

Shirley we're not coming to the conclusion that prosecuting Craigie is going to turn out to be a massive waste of the Scottish taxpayers' money and judicial system's time in pursuit of someone whose only crime has been to put the huns' nose out of joint? That would never happen, would it? :dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

Shirley we're not coming to the conclusion that prosecuting Craigie is going to turn out to be a massive waste of the Scottish taxpayers' money and judicial system's time in pursuit of someone whose only crime has been to put the huns' nose out of joint? That would never happen, would it? :dunno:
There's a big difference between what the Glazers did and what CW is charged with .

The former, albeit nasty, isn't criminal. The Glazers didn't pretend to their funders that they were Man U. That's the essence of the case against CW. A case that has already been proven, to a lesser standard of course, in a civil court.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

There's a big difference between what the Glazers did and what CW is charged with .

The former, albeit nasty, isn't criminal. The Glazers didn't pretend to their funders that they were Man U. That's the essence of the case against CW. A case that has already been proven, to a lesser standard of course, in a civil court.


Think Murray duped Craigie into thinking Ticketus were fine with the whole thing. Hope he gets off, just to annoy the thes. What was Craigie's sanction/penalty for losing the civil case? I missed that. Is he blackballed like GASL?

[CropleyWasGod]

Think Murray duped Craigie into thinking Ticketus were fine with the whole thing. Hope he gets off, just to annoy the thes. What was Craigie's sanction/penalty for losing the civil case? I missed that. Is he blackballed like GASL?

£17.7m

The same amount he duped Ticketus into giving him to pay the bank off.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

£17.7m
The same amount he duped Ticketus into giving him to pay the bank off.

Ta. It's lucky that he can easily afford it.

[Is It On....]

Ta. It's lucky that he can easily afford it.

Indeed and as detailed and exhaustive research by journalist of the year Keith Jackson of the Daily Record exclusively revealed in November 2010 "By the age of 26, Whyte was already Scotland's youngest self-made millionaire. Now, 13 years on, and in charge of a VAST business empire, his WEALTH IS OF THE RADAR." Never a truer word written by young Keith 😂😂😂

[Fuzzywuzzy]

Just to have a break from the trial

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topic/307303-feelings-on-a-chinese-sponsor/?page=1

And yet they still believe they have no social/racism/bigotry problems.......

[Hibernia&Alba]

Just to have a break from the trial

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topic/307303-feelings-on-a-chinese-sponsor/?page=1

And yet they still believe they have no social/racism/bigotry problems.......

Their support still thinks it's the 1970s and casual bigotry of any kind is perfectly okay. Jim Davidson has found some friends.

Totally embarrassing and pish patter.

[Moulin Yarns]

Apparently there is a police investigation into a tweet by amember of the public during proceedings. This means James Doleman is only ableto tweet during breaks






Findlay opens by showing the court minutesof a meeting on 9 May 2011 of a "committee of the Rangers board"

Asked if this is signed by the accusedWithey replies "As I explained earlier Mr Whyte has many signatures"

Withey says meeting was"notional" and did not take place "these things are prepared inadvance" he adds "there's nothing wrong with that"

Findlay "You have a document which, onthe face of it, is completely false, the meeting never took place"

Withey says minute was prepared a few daysbefore "is standard practice"

Withey agrees a client would expect hislawyer to deal with any legal issues Findlay ends cross-examination

[Moulin Yarns]

The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC risesto re-examine the witness

Withey says minute was prepared becausedeal was set to be completed on Friday 6 May Agrees it didn't happen

Withey "Advocate Depute I'm notdisagreeing with you" AD "I'm not challenging you"

Withey agrees minute was necessary forTicketus to release the funds, adds "Mr Whyte was now the legal owner ofRangers"

Withey says there were only 5-7 ringbinders in the takeover "data room." Notes "contracts weren't inthere"

Withey "I know there were many holesin the data room..I was never happy we had everything"

Mr Whyte took a view in was neither here orthere"

Advocate Depute suggests "there was anevolution in the data room over time, takes court through the index"

AD "why did you tell Mr Whyte to walkaway? Withey "It felt as though there were too many things to bediscovered"

Withey "I'd been involved in footballclubs before and under the surface it's very nasty."

Withey says he told Whyte "he didn'tknow what he was getting into." AD "what was his response? "Hewould laugh."

AD "Did you use a notebook"Withey "Yes." AD "For what purpose' Withey "To takenotes."

Court shown a page from Withey' notebook15.11.10 headed "Charlotte" Witness says was at meeting with Murraylawyers

Reads in part "HMRC won'tnegotiate" Withey "That was what was said to me, yes"

AD "You said there was a document sentto the takeover panel that referred to Ticketus" Withey "I didn't saythat"

Judge intervenes "Did you say thatyesterday?" Withey "No"

Court adjourns

[brog]

There's a big difference between what the Glazers did and what CW is charged with .

The former, albeit nasty, isn't criminal. The Glazers didn't pretend to their funders that they were Man U. That's the essence of the case against CW. A case that has already been proven, to a lesser standard of course, in a civil court.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I'm not even sure I see the legal distinction but regardless IMO the principle is the same. The Glazers borrowed money against the assets of a club they didn't own to fund the purchase of that club. CW used (or borrowed) advance ticket money of a club he didn't own to fund the purchase of that club. Incidentally, if I read it correctly Withey has just said that CW was owner of The Rangers at the time he used the Ticketus money. I can see CW getting off & certain witnesses possibly facing perjury charges! It's very enjoyable regardless.

[CropleyWasGod]

There are so many sub-plots going on here that it's easy to get confused about the real issues; I know that I'm losing sight of them now and again. That's probably one of the defence's tactics, and i do pity the jurors.

It's probably worthwhile setting out the charges that CW is facing.... which need a fair bit of attention in themselves. :rolleyes:

CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, born 18 January 1971, you are indicted at the instance of Her Majesty’s Advocate, and the charges against you are that:

(001) between 1 May 2010 and 9 May 2011, both dates inclusive, at the premises occupied by The Rangers Football Club plc (“Club”), a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, with registration number SC004276, and having its registered office at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow; Murray Park, Auchenhowie Road, Milngavie; Murray MHL Limited (“Murray”) a company incorporated under the Companies Acts with registration number SC143450 and having its registered office at 10 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh; Dundas and Wilson LLP, Saltire Court, 20 Castle Terrace, Edinburgh; Lloyds Banking Group, New Uberior House, 11 Earl Grey Street, Edinburgh; Dickson Minto WS, 16 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh; Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP, 1 Exchange Crescent, Conference Square, Edinburgh; The Bank of Scotland plc, The Mound Edinburgh; Castle Grant, Granton on Spey, Moray, and elsewhere in Scotland; Merchant Turnaround plc (“Merchant”), a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, with registration number 07116894, and having its registered office at 7 th Floor, Aldermary House, 10 – 15 Queen Street, London and premises at 34 Lime Street and 63 Queen Victoria Street both London; The Merchant House Group having its registered office at 7 th Floor, Aldermary House, 10 – 15 Queen Street, London; Collyer Bristow LLP, 4 Bedford Row, London; the Worthington Group plc, incorporated and registered in England and Wales with registration number 527186 and having its registered office at 1 The Green, Richmond, Surrey; Ticketus LLP a limited liability partnership incorporated and registered in England and Wales with registration number OC341356 and having its registered office at 20 Old Bailey, London; Ticketus 2 LLP a limited liability partnership incorporated and registered in England and Wales with company registration number OC346235 and having its registered office at 20 Old Bailey, London; Octopus Investments Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act with registration number 03942880 having its registered office at 20 Old Bailey, London; C Hoare & Co, Private Bankers, 37 Fleet Street and 32 Lowndes Street, both London; Dickson Minto WS, Broadgate Tower, 20 Primrose Street, London; MCR Business Consulting (now Duff & Phelps), 43-45 Portman Square, London; the Dorchester Hotel, London; Clarke Wilmot LLP, 1 George’s Square, Bath Street, Bristol; and elsewhere in England, and at addresses meantime to the prosecutor unknown in France and Monaco, you CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, with intent to acquire a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of the Club from Murray through Wavetower Limited a company incorporated under the Companies Acts with registration number 07380537 and having its registered office at 4 Bedford Row, London this being a company incorporated for the purpose of and the means used to effect said acquisition and a company managed and controlled by you and also being a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Capital Limited a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands with registration number 421410 having its registered office at c/o LWB Company Limited, PO Box 92, Road Town, Tortola, this being a company owned by you,

(i) did both directly and by the hands of your representatives namely Andrew Ellis, Philip Betts, William Lee, Gary Martin Withey and David Henry Grier, all c/o Police Service of Scotland, Gartcosh, pretend to the Officers of Murray namely Sir David Murray, Michael McGill and David Horne, all c/o Police Service of Scotland, Gartcosh and to the legal representatives of Murray namely Dundas and Wilson LLP that you, Wavetower Limited and Liberty Capital Limited individually or collectively had funds available to make all the payments stipulated by the representatives of Murray as being necessary to enable Wavetower Limited to acquire a controlling and majority stake in the shareholding of the Club from Murray and more particularly did pretend to said representatives in negotiations leading to and within a Share Purchase Agreement dated 6 May 2011 signed and concluded by you on behalf of Wavetower Limited and Liberty Capital Limited with Murray that Wavetower Limited had immediately available from its own and third party resources on an unconditional basis the cash resources necessary:- (a) to meet its obligations under said Agreement to contribute to the Club an amount equal to £5,000,000 for the playing squad, £1,700,000 for a Health and Safety liability and an amount equal to the small tax case liability of £2,800,000 said sums to be held and paid under the terms of the Purchaser’s Solicitor’s Undertaking of even date; (b) to pay the amount required to be paid under the Assignation Agreement dated 5 May 2011 between the Bank of Scotland PLC, Wavetower Limited, the Club and Subsidiaries of £18,000,962.29 and (c) to fund the reasonably foreseeable ongoing working capital requirements of the Club of £5,000,000,


(ii) the truth being as you well knew that said funds were not available and said cash resources were not immediately available on an unconditional basis at the time said Agreements were concluded in respect that the sums pretended by you to represent such immediately available and unconditionally held cash resources in fact comprised £3,925,000 from Merchant Turnaround plc and the Trustees of the and £24,357,094 from Ticketus LLP and Ticketus 2 LLP (“Ticketus”) which was held subject to an agreement or agreements being entered into between the Club and Ticketus after said acquisition in respect of the sale and purchase of season tickets for the three year period following said acquisition,

(iii) and you did thereby induce the said Officers of Murray to negotiate, enter into and conclude the said Share Purchase Agreement dated 6 May 2011 between Murray, Wavetower Limited and Liberty Capital Limited and to transfer 92,842,388 of ordinary shares being a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding in the Club, from Murray to Wavetower Limited and did thus obtain through Wavetower Limited 92,842,388 ordinary shares being a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of the Club by fraud;

(002) you CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, being an officer of a company, namely a director of The Rangers Football Club plc, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, with company number SC004276 and having its registered office at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow (hereinafter referred to as the “Club”), and knowing that a person, namely Wavetower Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, with company number 07380537 and having its registered office at 4 Bedford Row, London (hereinafter referred to as “Wavetower”) had acquired 92,842,388 ordinary shares in the Club from Murray and a liability had been incurred by Wavetower for the purpose of the said acquisition, namely that Wavetower had undertaken, in terms of the Assignation Agreement between Wavetower and the Bank of Scotland plc dated 5 May 2011 and the Share Purchase Agreement between Murray and Wavetower dated 6 May 2011, to pay at least £18,000,000 to the Bank of Scotland plc for an assignation of the debt owed to the Bank of Scotland plc by the Club, did on 9 May 2011 at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow; Dundas and Wilson LLP, Saltire Court, 20 Castle Terrace, Edinburgh; Lloyds Banking Group, New Uberior House, 11 Earl Grey Street, Edinburgh; Dickson Minto WS, 16 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh; the Bank of Scotland plc, The Mound, Edinburgh; Collyer Bristow LLP, 4 Bedford Row, London, authorise or permit the Club unlawfully to give financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of reducing or discharging the said liability of Wavetower to the Bank of Scotland plc, and at the time said financial assistance was given the Club in which the shares had been acquired was a public company, in that upon appointment as director you did cause the Club to enter into a loan agreement with Wavetower and, in implementation of the said loan agreement, to lend £18,000,000 to Wavetower, which in turn allowed Wavetower to meet its liability incurred to the Bank of Scotland plc for the purpose of the said acquisition: CONTRARY to Sections 678(3) and 680(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2006.

[Moulin Yarns]

cheers CWG I was wondering what he was actually charged with.

I can still see him getting done, but other charges could come out after.

[brog]

[QUOTE=CropleyWasGod;5044238]There are so many sub-plots going on here that it's easy to get confused about the real issues; I know that I'm losing sight of them now and again. That's probably one of the defence's tactics, and i do pity the jurors.

It's probably worthwhile setting out the charges that CW is facing.... which need a fair bit of attention in themselves. :rolleyes:

CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, born 18 January 1971, you are indicted at the instance of Her Majesty’s Advocate, and the charges against you are that:


Thanks CWG, that's v interesting & really makes sense of where Findlay is going with his defence. 1. He's trying to show that SDM etc were perfectly aware that CW did not have these funds therefore the fraud did not exist. 2. What's the definition of "immediately"? Every sale of assets with which I was involved had specific dates for funds to be lodged & a non completion clause if those deadlines were not met. Those details seem to be conspicuously absent here.
Separately, is that a typo in the charge sheet below? Is there a word missing ( possibly plc) between the & and? If it is it just adds to the shambles!
PS, I'm now more convinced CW will get off, Free the Wavetower 1!


ii) the truth being as you well knew that said funds were not available and said cash resources were not immediately available on an unconditional basis at the time said Agreements were concluded in respect that the sums pretended by you to represent such immediately available and unconditionally held cash resources in fact comprised £3,925,000 from Merchant Turnaround plc and the Trustees of the and £24,357,094 from Ticketus LLP and Ticketus 2 LLP (“Ticketus”) which was held subject to an agreement or agreements being entered into between the Club and Ticketus after said acquisition in respect of the sale and purchase of season tickets for the three year period following said acquisition,

[Jack Hackett]

Just to have a break from the trial

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topic/307303-feelings-on-a-chinese-sponsor/?page=1

And yet they still believe they have no social/racism/bigotry problems.......

I got as far as 'I don't know any chinky jokes and I deplore casual racism'... and gave up

[Moulin Yarns]

AD continues questions.

Withey on Murray Group "I thought theywouldn't like the involvement of Ticketus..we didn't show the financing"

Withey says he didn't "conceal"Ticketus involvement but didn't "reveal" it to the Murray Group oninstructions from Whyte.

AD asks witness if he spoke to an AviRobinson about Ticketus in March 2011, replies "I probably did"

Withey says he may well have told Robinsonthat Murray Group would pull out of the deal if Ticketus finance revealed.

Court shown note made by Avi Robinson30/03/2011 says "Ticketus disclosure: Vendors may walk away, Octopuswill."

They points out note continues "willbe disclosed eventually."

AD "It wasn't the only thing Mr Whytehad to do was fling a coin across the table" Withey agrees

Withey says if deal wasn't for a poundeverything would have to have been disclosed, including Ticketus funding.

Court shown document sent to the takeoverpanel by corporate advisers to Whyte Cairn Financial.

AD suggests "no reference toTicketus?" Withey "I can't see any"

14 Dec 2011 Phil Betts letter re £1m fromMerchant Capital. Needs a letter confirming it is available" Withet"Will send letter later today"

AD "Was Mr Whyte proactive in thistransaction?" Withey "No"

Court shown a number of emails betweenWhyte and Withey discussing details of the deal and Share Purchase Agreement

Lady Stacey points out "the paperworkis going slightly awry" Court adjourns for lunch

[Iain G]

[QUOTE=CropleyWasGod;5044238]There are so many sub-plots going on here that it's easy to get confused about the real issues; I know that I'm losing sight of them now and again. That's probably one of the defence's tactics, and i do pity the jurors.

It's probably worthwhile setting out the charges that CW is facing.... which need a fair bit of attention in themselves. :rolleyes:

CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE, born 18 January 1971, you are indicted at the instance of Her Majesty’s Advocate, and the charges against you are that:


Thanks CWG, that's v interesting & really makes sense of where Findlay is going with his defence. 1. He's trying to show that SDM etc were perfectly aware that CW did not have these funds therefore the fraud did not exist. 2. What's the definition of "immediately"? Every sale of assets with which I was involved had specific dates for funds to be lodged & a non completion clause if those deadlines were not met. Those details seem to be conspicuously absent here.
Separately, is that a typo in the charge sheet below? Is there a word missing ( possibly plc) between the & and? If it is it just adds to the shambles!
PS, I'm now more convinced CW will get off, Free the Wavetower 1!


ii) the truth being as you well knew that said funds were not available and said cash resources were not immediately available on an unconditional basis at the time said Agreements were concluded in respect that the sums pretended by you to represent such immediately available and unconditionally held cash resources in fact comprised £3,925,000 from Merchant Turnaround plc and the Trustees of the and £24,357,094 from Ticketus LLP and Ticketus 2 LLP (“Ticketus”) which was held subject to an agreement or agreements being entered into between the Club and Ticketus after said acquisition in respect of the sale and purchase of season tickets for the three year period following said acquisition,


Certainly in the bits I have read so far it seems that Murray and Co were aware of the Ticketus deal and the suggestion being made here is that it was the Rangers board / Murray that even pointed CW in the direction of Ticketus for funding shortfalls as they had used them previously? I don't think there is much of a doubt that, unofficially at least, there was understanding that Craiggie and co needed additional funding streams for or quickly after the takeover and Murray was in much haste to offload the club so suited his purpose? Now he is trying to retrospectively protect his "legacy" at the The Sevco :agree:

[Moulin Yarns]

Going back to CWG's post with the charges against Craig Whyte.

Let's see if I've got this right

Charge 1

Craig Whyte and others told David Murray and others that they had the funds to make all payments to take control of RFC (from it's own and third parties)

OK, my opinion, not guilty. The deal was to prove he had the funds to take control and pay off the debts and put in working capital. He paid the £1 and between Wavetower and third parties he paid the bank, the small tax case and presumably the others, but maybe not.

As soon as the £1 was paid for the shares he was the owner and could borrow against the assets (from Ticketus) If Murrays lawyers missed anything surely they have some liability ?

Charge 2

I'm not sure what is and isn't allowed, but this seems more likely to stand up


Any experts like to offer their opinions?

[ancient hibee]

Still think "not proven"is likely verdict.

Regarding the Wavetower charge when you strip it down Rangers provided funds for Wavetower to repay the Rangers borrowing at Lloyds.In normal borrowing transactions when a bank wants repayment it comes from the borrower ,exactly what has happened,what is the offence?

[lapsedhibee]

Still think "not proven"is likely verdict.

Regarding the Wavetower charge when you strip it down Rangers provided funds for Wavetower to repay the Rangers borrowing at Lloyds.In normal borrowing transactions when a bank wants repayment it comes from the borrower ,exactly what has happened,what is the offence?
Craigie did things in the wrong order.

[CropleyWasGod]

Still think "not proven"is likely verdict.

Regarding the Wavetower charge when you strip it down Rangers provided funds for Wavetower to repay the Rangers borrowing at Lloyds.In normal borrowing transactions when a bank wants repayment it comes from the borrower ,exactly what has happened,what is the offence?

CW entered into a contract to pay off the bank from his own resources. As it happened, he didn't; he used part of RFC's own resources to do so. Thus, RFC got £18m less than what was agreed.

[Ozyhibby]

Going back to CWG's post with the charges against Craig Whyte.

Let's see if I've got this right

Charge 1

Craig Whyte and others told David Murray and others that they had the funds to make all payments to take control of RFC (from it's own and third parties)

OK, my opinion, not guilty. The deal was to prove he had the funds to take control and pay off the debts and put in working capital. He paid the £1 and between Wavetower and third parties he paid the bank, the small tax case and presumably the others, but maybe not.

As soon as the £1 was paid for the shares he was the owner and could borrow against the assets (from Ticketus) If Murrays lawyers missed anything surely they have some liability ?

Charge 2

I'm not sure what is and isn't allowed, but this seems more likely to stand up


Any experts like to offer their opinions?

Def did not pay the small tax case. Remains unpaid to this day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Here we go again

Withey says Murray Group didn't ask ifTicketus were involved. AD "Did they ask who third party funders wereWithey "They generically asked

AD "Did lawyers on behalf of Murrayask who third party funders were?" Withey"I don't know"

AD Asks witness if Murray knew about theTicketus agreement Withey "I didn't tell them, but that doesn't mean theydidn't know."

Withey "I can't recall thespecifics" but agrees Murray group did ask about source of funds beforeTicketus were involved

Withey says if Murray had asked aboutTicketus he "would have to tell" in takeover document

AD "But that was never submitted"Withey "It was never required" AD "So it was neversubmitted" Withey "No"

Withey says he got a telephone call fromWhyte: "You're not going to believe this, it's only a pound" adds hewas "surprised."

AD notes Share Purchase Agreement statescash for deal had to be "immediately available" Withey "You haveto read it as a whole"

AD "It's straightforwardlanguage." Withey "It can't​ be that straightforward, we've spent anhour on it." J

AD what 's meant by funds being available onan "unconditional basis"? Withey "Between the 2 of us we've cameup with 3 different answers" J

Withey "If you buy rubbish players for£5m you still have rubbish players"

Withey on Whyte "I don't think he knewanything about running a football club..he didn't have the skillset..it was toobig for him

Withey finishes his evidence. Next witnessRoss Bryan (Octopus Investments, AKA Ticketus)

[Smartie]

I bought my business in March 2010.

I hope nobody ever asks me what I said and to whom around that time as I haven't got a clue.

[ancient hibee]

CW entered into a contract to pay off the bank from his own resources. As it happened, he didn't; he used part of RFC's own resources to do so. Thus, RFC got £18m less than what was agreed.
Yes but that is charge one isn't it? Charge 2 is the transaction between Rangers and Wavetower.I realise that this is the mechanics of him getting the money to pay for it but unless Rangers Memo and Articles forbid it lending money I can't see how it's an offence under the Companies Act.

[Moulin Yarns]

Last one for the day

Bryan tells the court he is 38 and a"private Investor" in London. He previously worked as an investmentmanager at Octopus Capital.

Bryan says Octopus invested money forclients with the aim of producing a good return. Made profits via fees.

Ticketus was the brand name for aninvestment product, court is told. "You buy a ticket for 90p and sell itfor a pound"

Bryan says there is a "taxadvantage" in this kind of "Enterprise investment product

Bryan "It's not a loan, that is therule from HMRC." Ticketus would own the tickets and club would usuallysell them.'

Bryan says Rangers had a previousarrangement with Ticketus before 2011 for "a small amount of money"

Witness points to Craig Whyte in the dock,says he met him in October 2010 to discuss the proposed deal.

Bryan says the Ticketus product was notheavily promoted as there is "a sensitivity about selling seasontickets"

Bryan says previous deals were "in thelow single digit millions." Now looking at multi-season deal.

Witness "We liked the club, the fansare very supportive, Mr Whyte was charming"

Bryan "Our own lawyers said we couldtalk about the deal." Make it conditional on purchase

Witness says that Octopus were "keen"to let David Murray know a financial company was involved in takeover.

Bryan says Ticketus were worried about afan's ticket boycott so wanted David Murray informed.

Bryan says he discussed doing same dealwith David Murray's advisers, they said no.

Minutes of Octopus meeting shown to court.Concerns Murray didn't know about funding Could lead to a "significantpublic relations issue

Bryan says he was instructed to speak toCraig Whyte and ask for assurances Murray was aware of the transaction

Later received an email from Whyte assuringhim Murray had been informed "It was not all Craig's money"

End of proceedings, tune in for the nextthrilling installment

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes but that is charge one isn't it? Charge 2 is the transaction between Rangers and Wavetower.I realise that this is the mechanics of him getting the money to pay for it but unless Rangers Memo and Articles forbid it lending money I can't see how it's an offence under the Companies Act.

This bit?

authorise or permit the Club unlawfully to give financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of reducing or discharging the said liability of Wavetower to the Bank of Scotland plc, and at the time said financial assistance was given the Club in which the shares had been acquired was a public company, in that upon appointment as director you did cause the Club to enter into a loan agreement with Wavetower and, in implementation of the said loan agreement, to lend £18,000,000 to Wavetower, which in turn allowed Wavetower to meet its liability incurred to the Bank of Scotland plc for the purpose of the said acquisition: CONTRARY to Sections 678(3) and 680(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2006.

It's the "financial assistance" provisions, which someone mentioned earlier. For example:-

678Assistance for acquisition of shares in public company

(1)Where a person is acquiring or proposing to acquire shares in a public company, it is not lawful for that company, or a company that is a subsidiary of that company, to give financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of the acquisition before or at the same time as the acquisition takes place.

(2)Subsection (1) does not prohibit a company from giving financial assistance for the acquisition of shares in it or its holding company if—

(a)the company's principal purpose in giving the assistance is not to give it for the purpose of any such acquisition, or

(b)the giving of the assistance for that purpose is only an incidental part of some larger purpose of the company,

and the assistance is given in good faith in the interests of the company.
(3)Where—

(a)a person has acquired shares in a company, and

(b)a liability has been incurred (by that or another person) for the purpose of the acquisition,

it is not lawful for that company, or a company that is a subsidiary of that company, to give financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of reducing or discharging the liability if, at the time the assistance is given, the company in which the shares were acquired is a public company.

Knock yourself out :greengrin

[ancient hibee]

Thank you.Far too many "that companies" for a man of my advanced years.And for the jury I suspect.

[CropleyWasGod]

Thank you.Far too many "that companies" for a man of my advanced years.And for the jury I suspect.
I share your view about the jury.

Coincidentally, this appeared on the BBC website today.



Should there be juries in fraud cases? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39877171

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

Yes I saw that.Some case,judge retires(not in the usual way),court in a house at one stage,jury reduced by three,holidays,illness.Probably the trial will be longer than the sentences.

[Moulin Yarns]

Apologies for the delay, some idiot arranged a meeting I had to attend:wink:

Proceedings open with the court continuingto hear evidence from Ross Bryan, a former Investment manager at Ticketus

Bryan says that Ticketus asked for an"awareness letter" confirming David Murray knew of 3rd partyinvolvement

Court shown email from witness to Whyte andPhill Betts 3 March 2011 "one last deep breath to get over the line..theslam dunk on this issue would be to get Sir David to write a confirmationletter"

Bryan says they wanted David Murray to knowthere was an "institution" involved in the takeover.

Witness says the club would not be in debtto Ticketus, but season ticket income would be lower. "When the customerbought the ticket the money wouldn't go to the club"

Draft letter shown to court says DavidMurray had been offered, and accepted "Life Presidency" of the club.

Email from Whyte shown to court, saysTicketus request is "pretty much" what he has discussed with Murray.

Later Whyte email "In conversationswith Sir David I mentioned a 3rd party would be providing a significant chunkof the funding"

Court shown letter signed by Whyte sayinghe has spoken to Murray about 3rd party funding.

Reply from Bryan to Whyte, says chairman ishappy with letter, "I'll let you know asap if we're in the clear."

Bryan confirms the agreement with Whytetook into account the possibility of an insolvency event at Rangers

Bryan agrees that the Ticketus deal wouldhave a "major financial impact on Rangers" and needed board approval

Bryan says Ticketus paid season ticket money to Rangers,who lent it to Wavetower, who paid the bank debt

Bryan confirms paying the bank debt toLloyds was a condition of providing the funds to Whyte.

Bryan says total deal was £24m £18m to payLloyds, £2m 'free cash to the club" rest VAT


break

[Moulin Yarns]

Court resumes with Donald Findlay QC risingto cross-examine Mr Bryan

Bryan says Octopus managed around £1+billion in funds in 2010. About 120 employees.

Witness says his job was to sourceInvestment opportunities and then progress them into legal contracts.

Findlay suggests Octopus had a duty not totake unnecessary risks with their client's money. Bryan agrees

Bryan confirms the was first approchedabout Rangers by Nigel Farr, "he was hoping to get a brokers fee"Introduced Phill Betts

Phil Betts was an "asset backedbanker" Bryan says. He arranged first meeting with Craig Whyte at theOctopus office Bryan "I believe there were other gentlemen there" buthe can't recall their names.

Bryan says Ticketus had 12 footballclients. Names Manchester United as one, refuses to name others.

Jury and witness leave court while a legalmatter is discussed

Jury returns, Bryan says Ticketus workedwith 6 English Premier league clubs, some in Europe. No other Scottish clients.

Findlay suggests: "a great number ofpeople in football would know about Ticketus" Bryan "only 3-4 at eachclub"

Witness agrees other staff at footballclubs might know about any deal with Ticketus. Says might be 100 or so

Findlay "apart from Mr Whyte is thereanyone else you know in this courtroom" Bryan says "a solicitor forOctopus is in the audience" (with the big bag of popcorn J )

Findlay "I noticed you kept lookingover there" (HMMM!! Taking direction?Cough, cough!)

Lunch

[CropleyWasGod]

Apologies for the delay, some idiot arranged a meeting I had to attend:wink:

Proceedings open with the court continuingto hear evidence from Ross Bryan, a former Investment manager at Ticketus

Bryan says that Ticketus asked for an"awareness letter" confirming David Murray knew of 3rd partyinvolvement

Court shown email from witness to Whyte andPhill Betts 3 March 2011 "one last deep breath to get over the line..theslam dunk on this issue would be to get Sir David to write a confirmationletter"

Bryan says they wanted David Murray to knowthere was an "institution" involved in the takeover.

Witness says the club would not be in debtto Ticketus, but season ticket income would be lower. "When the customerbought the ticket the money wouldn't go to the club"

Draft letter shown to court says DavidMurray had been offered, and accepted "Life Presidency" of the club.

Email from Whyte shown to court, saysTicketus request is "pretty much" what he has discussed with Murray.

Later Whyte email "In conversationswith Sir David I mentioned a 3rd party would be providing a significant chunkof the funding"

Court shown letter signed by Whyte sayinghe has spoken to Murray about 3rd party funding.

Reply from Bryan to Whyte, says chairman ishappy with letter, "I'll let you know asap if we're in the clear."

Bryan confirms the agreement with Whytetook into account the possibility of an insolvency event at Rangers

Bryan agrees that the Ticketus deal wouldhave a "major financial impact on Rangers" and needed board approval

Bryan says Ticketus paid season ticket money to Rangers,who lent it to Wavetower, who paid the bank debt

Bryan confirms paying the bank debt toLloyds was a condition of providing the funds to Whyte.

Bryan says total deal was £24m £18m to payLloyds, £2m 'free cash to the club" rest VAT


break


Your bit in bold.... DF should have asked WHEN that happened.

[Moulin Yarns]

Your bit in bold.... DF should have asked WHEN that happened.

Yep! thought that was relevant. He might come back to it after lunch, you never know.

[Moulin Yarns]

Afternoon update



Proceedings resume with Donald Findlay QCcontinuing his cross-examination of former Ticketus investment manager RossBryan

Findlay "from that first meeting therewas the possibility of buying the shares" Bryan "All avenues wereopen"

Bryan says he can't recall if Lloyds debtwas discussed at the first meeting. Believes not mentioned until 2011.

Ticketus memo from October 2010 shown tocourt, mentions repayment of bank debt.

Deal at the point was £20m for 45% ofseason tickets in year one, 45% in year two, 35% in year 3.

Memo notes if they added the existing dealTicketus would control 61% of the club's season tickets in 2011-2012

Bryan "Selling season tickets wassensitive..fans might boycott..we were not publicity hungry"

Witness says Ticketus wanted Murray to knowabout 3rd party involvement for "anti-embarrassment reasons"

Bryan "We didn't want to embarrass theseller" Findlay "Are you sticking with that?" Bryan"Yes"

Findlay "If you spend £500 on a seasonticket you might hope the club is getting the benefit, but £50 is going to somefund in London."

Bryan "Ok, yeah​." Findlay"Requires secrecy?" Bryan "You could argue that" Findlay"I don't argue, I ask questions."

Findlay "Ticketus wanted theirinvolvement kept secret?" Bryan "To a point" Findlay "Whatpoint?"

Findlay: Ticketus don't want their dealknown but don't want to embarrass David Murray." Did you keep it secretfrom him? "Ultimately, yes"

Findlay "You didn't want David Murrayto know because he might pull the plug on the deal, you didn't care aboutembarrassing him"

Findlay "If you were genuinelyconcerned​ why didn't someone pick up the phone and ask him rather than thisrigmarole?'

Bryan says contacting Murray would havebeen a breach of financial regulations.

Findlay "Rangers were a client, whydidn't you speak to them?" Bryan "I didn't speak to them."Findlay "The mythical Chinese wall."

Findlay asks why Ticketus didn'tinvestigate through their lawyers? Bryan "We eventually did" Findlay"Will I find that on a piece of paper?" Bryan "I don't think youwill"

Bryan says he did one football deal formore than £20m, rest were only £4-5m Findlay "You were keen to put itthrough" "Yes"

[Moulin Yarns]

Findlay "Can you embarrass acompany?" Suggests worry was embarrassing David Murray

Findlay Do you know of any communicationbetween lawyers for Ticketus and lawyers for Murray Group?

Bryan says he would have expected Murrayteam to notice ref to third party funding in share purchase agreement

Bryan says it was Ticketus who asked formention of third party funding to be added to share purchase agreement. Adds heexpected Murray lawyers to ask about change but didn't happen

Ticketus memo shown to court. Says wouldexpect word of their involvement to "filter back to Sir David" weneed to ensure "Sir David's has no motive to release a unhelpful statementto the press." Unhappy fans still buy season tickets"

Findlay "You didn't care about DavidMurray." Bryan "It would be embarrassing for Murray that new ownerhad solved the problem."

Findlay "You had no intention ofpulling the plug." Bryan "The risk changed from October to May"

Findlay asks if lawyers for Ticketus lookedinto legal aspects of the deal Bryan says view was if ownership transferred waslegal

Ticketus memo "Our funding is not required topurchase the club" hence no issue with "financial assistance"

Findlay suggests that Ticketus had expertlegal advice the deal was legal. Bryan "That was when he was paying£5m" Findlay "Did you get further advice when the price dropped to apound?" Bryan "We didn't repeat the exercise"

Findlay asks Bryan if he ever got an emailfrom David Murray confirming he knew about 3rd party funding? "I don'tthink we did"

Findlay "Was there a phone call fromWhyte saying he had talked to David Murray about 3rd party Bryan "At thistime I don't recall"

Findlay "Are you seriously sayingTicketus took no steps to Independently check" Bryan "No"

Bryan "Was in the Share PurchaseAgreement, we expected he read it."

Findlay Says "It's clear that Murraymust have known there was 3rd party funding" Bryan "Yes"



Court adjourns

[Smartie]

Findlay "Can you embarrass acompany?" Suggests worry was embarrassing David Murray

Findlay Do you know of any communicationbetween lawyers for Ticketus and lawyers for Murray Group?

Bryan says he would have expected Murrayteam to notice ref to third party funding in share purchase agreement

Bryan says it was Ticketus who asked formention of third party funding to be added to share purchase agreement. Adds heexpected Murray lawyers to ask about change but didn't happen

Ticketus memo shown to court. Says wouldexpect word of their involvement to "filter back to Sir David" weneed to ensure "Sir David's has no motive to release a unhelpful statementto the press." Unhappy fans still buy season tickets"

Findlay "You didn't care about DavidMurray." Bryan "It would be embarrassing for Murray that new ownerhad solved the problem."

Findlay "You had no intention ofpulling the plug." Bryan "The risk changed from October to May"

Findlay asks if lawyers for Ticketus lookedinto legal aspects of the deal Bryan says view was if ownership transferred waslegal

Ticketus memo "Our funding is not required topurchase the club" hence no issue with "financial assistance"

Findlay suggests that Ticketus had expertlegal advice the deal was legal. Bryan "That was when he was paying£5m" Findlay "Did you get further advice when the price dropped to apound?" Bryan "We didn't repeat the exercise"

Findlay asks Bryan if he ever got an emailfrom David Murray confirming he knew about 3rd party funding? "I don'tthink we did"

Findlay "Was there a phone call fromWhyte saying he had talked to David Murray about 3rd party Bryan "At thistime I don't recall"

Findlay "Are you seriously sayingTicketus took no steps to Independently check" Bryan "No"

Bryan "Was in the Share PurchaseAgreement, we expected he read it."

Findlay Says "It's clear that Murraymust have known there was 3rd party funding" Bryan "Yes"



Court adjourns



A few references to Sir David in there.

I'd love to know what any of this mess has to do with our magnificent, wonderful, glorious, cup-winning, goal-scoring, new contact signing, captain fantastic.

[The Pointer]

This is compulsive, coming home from work to read the next instalment.

Many thanks GF.

[Is It On....]

May have missed something but is Octopus the asset management business based in London? If so, what are they supposed to have done / provided to Sevco / Craig Whyte?

[CropleyWasGod]

May have missed something but is Octopus the asset management business based in London? If so, what are they supposed to have done / provided to Sevco / Craig Whyte?
This particular Octopus is the legal name of the company that used the Ticketus brand.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This particular Octopus is the legal name of the company that used the Ticketus brand.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

There are many arms to Octopus.

[CropleyWasGod]

There are many arms to Octopus.
And they have access to a few squid.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

And they have access to a few squid.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

You win.

[oldbutdim]

You win.

Indeed.



Kraken up at that one.

:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Indeed.



Kraken up at that one.

:greengrin
As funny as a kick in the tentacles. 😂

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[majorhibs]

Was so obvious at the time whitey gambled everything on qualification to CL & when team failed it was a busted flush, take it this is all recorded previously.

[ballengeich]

Was so obvious at the time whitey gambled everything on qualification to CL & when team failed it was a busted flush, take it this is all recorded previously.

Qualification for the CL would have just kept things ticking over. Whyte also needed an early unfavourable BTC verdict while the money was still coming in. If that had happened he could have liquidated Rangers 1872, blaming the Murray regime, and somehow emerged from the insolvency in possession of the assets.

[CropleyWasGod]

Qualification for the CL would have just kept things ticking over. Whyte also needed an early unfavourable BTC verdict while the money was still coming in. If that had happened he could have liquidated Rangers 1872, blaming the Murray regime, and somehow emerged from the insolvency in possession of the assets.

Not sure about this bit.

He appointed his own pals in the insolvency, and still didn't get away with the assets.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not sure about this bit.

He appointed his own pals in the insolvency, and still didn't get away with the assets.

Was that underestimating the power of HMRC?

[CropleyWasGod]

Was that underestimating the power of HMRC?

Perhaps, TBF. Although those sums could have (should have) been done long before the event itself.

I'm more of the view that CW did gamble on the CL money. That he intended to cash-in later on, perhaps through a sale.

[ballengeich]

Perhaps, TBF. Although those sums could have (should have) been done long before the event itself.

I'm more of the view that CW did gamble on the CL money. That he intended to cash-in later on, perhaps through a sale.

We'll never know for sure what Whyte's plan was. He has said that the European failure scuppered his cash-flow projections and that his big mistake was not entering administration the day after the defeat in Maribor. In this instance I would take him at his word.

Whyte seems to have worked previously as an asset-stripper who transferred companies' assets into off-shore ownership. It's plausible that the occasional doubts about the ownership of Ibrox ("Show us the deeds") is because he'd set off down that route. Maybe he realised he was out of his depth this time,

[CropleyWasGod]

We'll never know for sure what Whyte's plan was. He has said that the European failure scuppered his cash-flow projections and that his big mistake was not entering administration the day after the defeat in Maribor. In this instance I would take him at his word.

Whyte seems to have worked previously as an asset-stripper who transferred companies' assets into off-shore ownership. It's plausible that the occasional doubts about the ownership of Ibrox ("Show us the deeds") is because he'd set off down that route. Maybe he realised he was out of his depth this time,

... your last bit. I remember having those same thoughts at the time of the administration about D&P. That they had underestimated the scrutiny that there would be of the whole saga. Whereas, in the past, they had been able to work in relative obscurity, now they had a public profile... and Hibs.net... to contend with.

[Moulin Yarns]

a wee taster for today

https://t.co/XW08vRh7Ed

:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

a wee taster for today

https://t.co/XW08vRh7Ed

:greengrin

Did SDM hire that truck? :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

This morning in the Big Brother House




Proceedings resumed with defence counselDonald Findlay QC continuing his cross-examination of Crown witness Ross Bryan



Bryan told the court yesterday that in 2010he was an investment manager at Ticketus


Bryan confirms that it was Ticketus whowanted "third party funding" mentioned in the agreement between Whyteand Murray group



Witness says Ticketus wanted "the clubto perform" so it continued to sell season tickets



Findlay notes normal process with 3rd partyfunding is to put money in an "escrow" account until deal iscompleted. Bryan agrees



Findlay "It's not going to be someonehanding over £20m in a suitcase?" Bryan "No"

Findlay before Whyte did you know AndrewEllis and Chris Akers were interested in buying Rangers? Bryan "Yes"


Findlay "Did a member of theInvestment committee make inquiries about Akers and Ellis? "He said hewould speak to contacts in Scotland"

Findlay "Do you remember telephonecall from William Murdoch about people buying Rangers?"

Findlay "It would seem a littledifficult to square a high degree of confidentiality with a conversation on agolf course"


Bryan​ asked if he knows a Paul Hassal?"Yes" Do you remember email exchange? Yes"

Bryan says Hassal "Made an inquiryabout doing a deal with Ticketus?" Did he know about the Craig Whyte dealwith Rangers? Bryan "Yes"

Findlay Two people outside the deal knewabout it? Bryan "Unfortunately, yes"


Bryan "I got cold called once bysomeone who knew about the deal with Rangers and asked if interested in anotherScottish club"

Findlay uses a hypothetical company"Micky Mouse ltd" to suggest Wavetower guarantee was"worthless" as it had no assets

Findlay to witness "Do try and helpme, I know it's all very tedious"


Findlay "orginally Murray wanted £5mfor shares, eventually given away for nothing" Bryan "This coincidedwith discussion of the tax case

Findlay asks about tax cases "when didTicketus get wind of them?" Bryan: Didn't come up in due diligence, foundout in April/May

Bryan "Normally you would expect thesethings to be disclosed, should have been​ in initial data room."


Court shown email, 5 April 2011, fromwitness to Phil Betts, David Grier and others titled "Tax case hurdleinfo"


Bryan confirms Grier was assisting Whytewith the tax cases . His company later became Duff and Phelps, administratorsof Rangers

Findlay 'If Grier said later he didn't knowabout Ticketus that would be an absolute lie?" Bryan "Would be hardto believe"




Fin

[Moulin Yarns]

More.


MORE…

Bryan email suggests scenarios for big taxcase 4 is "Murray loses and HMRC want it all-The Armageddon scenario"

Email continues "Technically Rangerscould phoenix the club" Bryan says this putting into administration toclear out problems

Bryan says he would have expected the £2.8msmall tax case bill to have been disclosed earlier

Next email from Bryan to Craig Whyte andPhill Betts over tax cases shown to court "nervous about quality ofinformation club is supplying​"

Findlay "The problem with the big taxcase was there wasn't a number" [on the potential liability] Bryan"Correct"
Email continues "The press coverage ofthe "suprise" £2.8m tax case...did nothing to instill confidence inthe club's truthfulness"

Bryan "There were a couple of times wefound out things through the media. I don't know how they got it." J (All hail Hibs.net)

Email suggests the maximum potentialliability in "big tax case" was £100m

Email: Discusses "Craig's privatediscussions with HMRC...£5m a year over a few years would satisfy them."

Bryan email on the "Armageddon"of HMRC winning the big tax case. Suggests: "Instructing an administratorto protect it's interests." Theclub is pre-packed to rid it of the HMRC debt and Craig/Wavetower take controland honour the Ticketus agreement"

Findlay "Who thought this up?"Bryan "Came from Mr Whyte's side."

"How does Scottish administrationdiffer from English?...looks after the charge-holder first and foremost. Craigwill call the shots."

Continues "My 'middle eastern nutter'scenario could play out ( he buys the club and Craig/Ticketus are left out) "Weneed to be crystal clear that Craig would be in control."

Email continues "How would the SPLtreat a pre-pack? Asks for clarity on the "Armageddon scenario" oflosing licence to play

Findlay "It is clear the tax issuesmight have scared the Investment committee completely?"

Findlay "The jury may conclude Murrayhadn't been entirely candid about information in the data room?" Bryan"Correct"

Findlay on the deal signing "As soonas the cap was back on the Mont Blanc the money was available" Bryan"It's a normal procedure"

Findlay ends cross-examination, AdvocateDepute rises to re-examine.

[Moulin Yarns]

Continued…


AD "Ticketus had no access to contentof data room?" Bryan "Correct" AD "No contact withMurray" Bryan "Correct"

AD "You had to rely on what peopletold you?" Bryan "Yes, we couldn't go directly and askquestions."

Bryan agrees Ticketus did not want word ofthe proposed deal "leaking out to the wider community." Never calledMurray


Lunch!!

[Moulin Yarns]

And this afternoon.

Advocate Depute ends and Bryan steps downfrom the witness box Next witness, Phillip Betts (former RFC director)

Betts is sworn in, tells the court he is 54and works as a "asset finance broker"

Betts confirms he knows Craig Whyte, pointsto him in the dock. Says he first met the accused in 2009.

Witness said he became a director ofMerchant Turnaround in 2010, Whyte was company secretary. Invested in"distressed businesses"

Betts says he introduced Whyte to DavidGrier in 2009. Says Grier worked for MCR which became Duff and Phelps

Witness says he became aware of Whyte'sinterest in buying Rangers in mid 2010. Phoned him up and offered to help.

Betts says he made some "discreetenquiries" about funding a takeover, was told "would be verydifficult."

Witness says Whyte told him he was"struggling to find the funds, which he found surprising. Later spoke toNigel Farr"

Betts says he told Farr "Mr Whyte is avery easygoing chap and very wealthy" He arranged meeting with Ticketus.

Betts says he already knew Rangers wereinvolved with Ticketus. Meeting went well and interest expressed

Betts says he later became a director of Wavetower,the "vehicle" Whyte used to buy Rangers.

The witness says as well as TicketusMerchant Turnaround was a possible source of funds. Betts was a director ofMerchant​ Turnaround. Agrees he had a "duty of care" to it'sinvestors

In March 2011 £1m was transferred fromMerchant Turnaround to Colloyer Bristow witness confirms

AD "Had there been board approval forthis transfer of funds" Betts "No" but after a pause says"there must have been"

Betts says he asked Whyte about gettingpermission to transfer the £1m. Was told "he would handle it."

Betts says he asked Whyte about gettingpermission to transfer the £1m. Was told "he would handle it."

Witness says that in 2012 a new directordiscovered the £1m had been transferred out of the Colloyer Bristow account.

Betts says he was unaware of any authoritygiven for the funds to be transferred.

Betts says he went to Edinburgh for thedeal completion on 5 May 2011. "We sat around all day twiddling ourthumbs"

On the next day documents were signed AD"Was a pound coin produced at all?" Betts "It was flicked acrossthe table"

Betts shown 9 May agreement for Rangers tolend Wavetower £16m. Witness says he signed for Rangers as a director

Betts says he has no memory of the documentbut agrees he signed it. Was also a director of Wavetower

AD "Did you read it before you signedit?" Betts "Probably"




Court adjourns until 10.15 tomorrow

[CropleyWasGod]

And this afternoon.

Advocate Depute ends and Bryan steps downfrom the witness box Next witness, Phillip Betts (former RFC director)

Betts is sworn in, tells the court he is 54and works as a "asset finance broker"

Betts confirms he knows Craig Whyte, pointsto him in the dock. Says he first met the accused in 2009.

Witness said he became a director ofMerchant Turnaround in 2010, Whyte was company secretary. Invested in"distressed businesses"

Betts says he introduced Whyte to DavidGrier in 2009. Says Grier worked for MCR which became Duff and Phelps

Witness says he became aware of Whyte'sinterest in buying Rangers in mid 2010. Phoned him up and offered to help.

Betts says he made some "discreetenquiries" about funding a takeover, was told "would be verydifficult."

Witness says Whyte told him he was"struggling to find the funds, which he found surprising. Later spoke toNigel Farr"

Betts says he told Farr "Mr Whyte is avery easygoing chap and very wealthy" He arranged meeting with Ticketus.

Betts says he already knew Rangers wereinvolved with Ticketus. Meeting went well and interest expressed

Betts says he later became a director of Wavetower,the "vehicle" Whyte used to buy Rangers.

The witness says as well as TicketusMerchant Turnaround was a possible source of funds. Betts was a director ofMerchant​ Turnaround. Agrees he had a "duty of care" to it'sinvestors

In March 2011 £1m was transferred fromMerchant Turnaround to Colloyer Bristow witness confirms

AD "Had there been board approval forthis transfer of funds" Betts "No" but after a pause says"there must have been"

Betts says he asked Whyte about gettingpermission to transfer the £1m. Was told "he would handle it."

Betts says he asked Whyte about gettingpermission to transfer the £1m. Was told "he would handle it."

Witness says that in 2012 a new directordiscovered the £1m had been transferred out of the Colloyer Bristow account.

Betts says he was unaware of any authoritygiven for the funds to be transferred.

Betts says he went to Edinburgh for thedeal completion on 5 May 2011. "We sat around all day twiddling ourthumbs"

On the next day documents were signed AD"Was a pound coin produced at all?" Betts "It was flicked acrossthe table"

Betts shown 9 May agreement for Rangers tolend Wavetower £16m. Witness says he signed for Rangers as a director

Betts says he has no memory of the documentbut agrees he signed it. Was also a director of Wavetower

AD "Did you read it before you signedit?" Betts "Probably"




Court adjourns until 10.15 tomorrow



Haud the bus.

It's late in the day, so maybe I'm being thick. Is this something new?

[Moulin Yarns]

Haud the bus.

It's late in the day, so maybe I'm being thick. Is this something new?

I'm not sure of the timescale but it reads as if he was a director of both Wavetower and RFC when the deal was done. Need some digging to be done, methinks


Edit, not much digging


The “Season Tickets” were 23,154 for 11/12, 27,017 for 12/13, 27,014 for 13/14 and 23,154 for 14/15. Effectively Rangers were giving up their rights to this income for the seasons mentioned. The form was signed by Phil Betts, director of Rangers and also heavily involved with Close Finance, and Mr Whyte himself.

https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/reflections-on-craig-whytes-obsessive-secrecy/

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not sure of the timescale but it reads as if he was a director of both Wavetower and RFC when the deal was done. Need some digging to be done, methinks


Edit, not much digging



https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/reflections-on-craig-whytes-obsessive-secrecy/

Okay, so he was a director. Fair enough.

I'm having a slow day, though. Why would they lend them the money? And did they ever get it back?

And, more importantly, did BDO know about it? :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Okay, so he was a director. Fair enough.

I'm having a slow day, though. Why would they lend them the money? And did they ever get it back?

And, more importantly, did BDO know about it? :greengrin

Maybe Donald Findlay will dig a bit deeper

[s.a.m]

(Sorry if this question was answered about a thousand pages ago, but....) is there an issue with David Grier's different roles during the whole process (pre and post admin)?

[CropleyWasGod]

(Sorry if this question was answered about a thousand pages ago, but....) is there an issue with David Grier's different roles during the whole process (pre and post admin)?

He's going to be a star witness, I'm sure.

IIRC, he was charged originally....possibly flipped, so he knows a lot of "stuff".

I'm sure that, if there is an issue like you say, DF won't miss him. :greengrin

[s.a.m]

He's going to be a star witness, I'm sure.

IIRC, he was charged originally....possibly flipped, so he knows a lot of "stuff".

I'm sure that, if there is an issue like you say, DF won't miss him. :greengrin

:aok:

[Brunswickbill]

Okay, so he was a director. Fair enough.

I'm having a slow day, though. Why would they lend them the money? And did they ever get it back?

And, more importantly, did BDO know about it? :greengrin

Bryan's evidence yesterday post#37210

Bryan agrees that the Ticketus deal wouldhave a "major financial impact on Rangers" and needed board approval

Bryan says Ticketus paid season ticket money to Rangers,who lent it to Wavetower, who paid the bank debt

Bryan confirms paying the bank debt toLloyds was a condition of providing the funds to Whyte.

Bryan says total deal was £24m £18m to payLloyds, £2m 'free cash to the club" rest VAT

[CropleyWasGod]

Bryan's evidence yesterday post#37210

Bryan agrees that the Ticketus deal wouldhave a "major financial impact on Rangers" and needed board approval

Bryan says Ticketus paid season ticket money to Rangers,who lent it to Wavetower, who paid the bank debt

Bryan confirms paying the bank debt toLloyds was a condition of providing the funds to Whyte.

Bryan says total deal was £24m £18m to payLloyds, £2m 'free cash to the club" rest VAT

Gotcha.... ta :aok:

It's not a new thing, then, just clarification of how the scam actually went down.

[Treadstone]

Time for Brian Kennedy to make one of his publicity seeking appearances.

Or as a netter once put it "he's one of those people who confess to murders they didn't commit. "

[lord bunberry]

A lot of this stuff goes over my head, but can someone explain something to me. David Murray said he didn't know about the ticketus deal, but a member of the rangers board was working with Whyte putting his bid together.
I find it hard to believe that Murray didn't know about it.

[HoboHarry]

A lot of this stuff goes over my head, but can someone explain something to me. David Murray said he didn't know about the ticketus deal, but a member of the rangers board was working with Whyte putting his bid together.
I find it hard to believe that Murray didn't know about it.
Indeed. :wink:

[Keith_M]

Indeed. :wink:


I'm sure he 'has no recollections of that event', or some other not-quite-a-denial

[CropleyWasGod]

A lot of this stuff goes over my head, but can someone explain something to me. David Murray said he didn't know about the ticketus deal, but a member of the rangers board was working with Whyte putting his bid together.
I find it hard to believe that Murray didn't know about it.
Pretty sure that Betts wasn't a director of RFC when the deal was being worked on.

BUT....the Donald will clarify, I'm sure 🙄

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Pretty sure that Betts wasn't a director of RFC when the deal was being worked on.



Betts shown 9 May agreement for Rangers tolend Wavetower £16m. Witness says he signed for Rangers as a director

Betts says he has no memory of the documentbut agrees he signed it. Was also a director of Wavetower

Seems clear from this that he was an RFC director at the time? He signed the loan agreement on behalf of RFC?

[ancient hibee]

So Rangers were going to run the business for three seasons on approx half their normal gate takings.

[Seveno]

Seems clear from this that he was an RFC director at the time? He signed the loan agreement on behalf of RFC?
Is this not the basis of the Crwown case. That Whyte and friends did the deal with Ticketus on behalf of Rangers before they actually owned the Club. The money was then loaned to Wavetower to buy Rangers.

This was probably in breach of the Companies Act but not necessarily fraud if the Vendors knew about it? The latter part being what Findlay seems to be making a good go of proving.

[ancient hibee]

If the Crown dropped charges for some of these witnesses to give evidence they didn't write their scripts very well.

[Prof. Shaggy]

Seems clear from this that he was an RFC director at the time? He signed the loan agreement on behalf of RFC?

Betts was appointed to the RFC board by Whyte.
I guess that's after the coin was flipped over the table.

[greenginger]

This morning in the Big Brother House




Proceedings resumed with defence counselDonald Findlay QC continuing his cross-examination of Crown witness Ross Bryan



Bryan told the court yesterday that in 2010he was an investment manager at Ticketus


Bryan confirms that it was Ticketus whowanted "third party funding" mentioned in the agreement between Whyteand Murray group



Witness says Ticketus wanted "the clubto perform" so it continued to sell season tickets



Findlay notes normal process with 3rd partyfunding is to put money in an "escrow" account until deal iscompleted. Bryan agrees



Findlay "It's not going to be someonehanding over £20m in a suitcase?" Bryan "No"

Findlay before Whyte did you know AndrewEllis and Chris Akers were interested in buying Rangers? Bryan "Yes"


Findlay "Did a member of theInvestment committee make inquiries about Akers and Ellis? "He said hewould speak to contacts in Scotland"

Findlay "Do you remember telephonecall from William Murdoch about people buying Rangers?"

Findlay "It would seem a littledifficult to square a high degree of confidentiality with a conversation on agolf course"


Bryan​ asked if he knows a Paul Hassal?"Yes" Do you remember email exchange? Yes"

Bryan says Hassal "Made an inquiryabout doing a deal with Ticketus?" Did he know about the Craig Whyte dealwith Rangers? Bryan "Yes"

Findlay Two people outside the deal knewabout it? Bryan "Unfortunately, yes"


Bryan "I got cold called once bysomeone who knew about the deal with Rangers and asked if interested in anotherScottish club"

Findlay uses a hypothetical company"Micky Mouse ltd" to suggest Wavetower guarantee was"worthless" as it had no assets

Findlay to witness "Do try and helpme, I know it's all very tedious"


Findlay "orginally Murray wanted £5mfor shares, eventually given away for nothing" Bryan "This coincidedwith discussion of the tax case

Findlay asks about tax cases "when didTicketus get wind of them?" Bryan: Didn't come up in due diligence, foundout in April/May

Bryan "Normally you would expect thesethings to be disclosed, should have been​ in initial data room."


Court shown email, 5 April 2011, fromwitness to Phil Betts, David Grier and others titled "Tax case hurdleinfo"


Bryan confirms Grier was assisting Whytewith the tax cases . His company later became Duff and Phelps, administratorsof Rangers

Findlay 'If Grier said later he didn't knowabout Ticketus that would be an absolute lie?" Bryan "Would be hardto believe"




Fin

The Ticketus guy says he got a cold call from someone who knew about the Rangers deal and asked if interested in another Scottish Club. :hmmm:

Liths getting a lead from Campbell Ogilvie when he was at the PBS, perhaps ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Seems clear from this that he was an RFC director at the time? He signed the loan agreement on behalf of RFC?
Not before CW took over, though, which is what I meant.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Not before CW took over, though, which is what I meant.

Sent from my SM-A510F using TapatalkOh. Sorry.

[Deansy]

There's an awful lot of 'I don't remember' statements coming from an awful lot of witnesses in this case

Btw - if this jury is genuinely selected from 'Joe Public' I'd think there's a fair chance of both Whyte and Murray being declared 'A pair of shyster xxxxxxxxs' !!

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh. Sorry.
S'cool. This **** has more characters and subplots and twists than a John le Carré novel.....and is actually better fun than the one I'm reading just now.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

At last, confirmation of yesterday's thoughts


The trial continues

Proceedings resume to hear further evidencefrom asset finance manager Phil Betts.

Court shown an email from Craig Whyteasking Merchant Turnaround to transfer £1m to Colloyer Bristow

Betts says he was happy to transfer themoney as Collyer Bristow only held it on a "conditional basis."

Betts asked about a document showing a £16mloan from Rangers to Wavetower. Says he has never seen it.

Betts agrees that when this happened (9 May 2011) he wasa director of both Rangers and Wavetower.

AD "As a director of Rangers you approved a £16mloan to Wavetower, of which you were also a director?" Betts"According to that document"

Betts "I don't remember signing theloan agreement, but it is my signature" AD "Do you sign documentswithout reading them?"

AD "Do you recall who asked you tosign this document?" Betts "I don't remember signing it."

AD "Did Wavetower have anyassets?" Betts "No"

AD "It was club money that was beingused to pay off the Lloyds debt?" Betts "Wavetower were the owners ofRangers Football Club"

AD "Do you see it as an issue that aclub asset is being used to pay off the debt?" Betts "The bank hadcontrol of those assets anyway"

AD "Wavetower had no funds" Betts"The completion price was only a pound."

Betts says deal was £27m in total, majorityTicketus money, £1m from Merchant £4.5m from Whyte.

Betts says he first heard about Jeromepension fund in July 2011 when he saw Aidan Earley in the directors box atIbrox

AD As a director of Wavetower did you havesight of the funds to be used? Betts "No"

Betts on Jerome pension fund "I spoketo Gary Withey about it but can't recall the conversation"

Betts says money was to be provided forplayers, the stadium and the tax bill "If HMRC gave us time to pay the taxbill"

AD "Was there a desire to keep theinvolvement of Ticketus confidential?" Betts says Ticketus did not wantMurray group to know

Adds "They were concerned the MurrayGroup would approach them for the funds and they would say no."

AD suggests cash-flow projection given toMurray was misleading as didn't mention Ticketus




Break

[CropleyWasGod]

At last, confirmation of yesterday's thoughts


The trial continues

Proceedings resume to hear further evidencefrom asset finance manager Phil Betts.

Court shown an email from Craig Whyteasking Merchant Turnaround to transfer £1m to Colloyer Bristow

Betts says he was happy to transfer themoney as Collyer Bristow only held it on a "conditional basis."

Betts asked about a document showing a £16mloan from Rangers to Wavetower. Says he has never seen it.

Betts agrees that when this happened (9 May 2011) he wasa director of both Rangers and Wavetower.

AD "As a director of Rangers you approved a £16mloan to Wavetower, of which you were also a director?" Betts"According to that document"

Betts "I don't remember signing theloan agreement, but it is my signature" AD "Do you sign documentswithout reading them?"

AD "Do you recall who asked you tosign this document?" Betts "I don't remember signing it."

AD "Did Wavetower have anyassets?" Betts "No"

AD "It was club money that was beingused to pay off the Lloyds debt?" Betts "Wavetower were the owners ofRangers Football Club"

AD "Do you see it as an issue that aclub asset is being used to pay off the debt?" Betts "The bank hadcontrol of those assets anyway"

AD "Wavetower had no funds" Betts"The completion price was only a pound."

Betts says deal was £27m in total, majorityTicketus money, £1m from Merchant £4.5m from Whyte.

Betts says he first heard about Jeromepension fund in July 2011 when he saw Aidan Earley in the directors box atIbrox

AD As a director of Wavetower did you havesight of the funds to be used? Betts "No"

Betts on Jerome pension fund "I spoketo Gary Withey about it but can't recall the conversation"

Betts says money was to be provided forplayers, the stadium and the tax bill "If HMRC gave us time to pay the taxbill"

AD "Was there a desire to keep theinvolvement of Ticketus confidential?" Betts says Ticketus did not wantMurray group to know

Adds "They were concerned the MurrayGroup would approach them for the funds and they would say no."

AD suggests cash-flow projection given toMurray was misleading as didn't mention Ticketus




Break
I'm wondering if this guy should also have been in the dock 🙄

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm wondering if this guy should also have been in the dock 🙄

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Probably easier to list those who shouldn't be in the dock :wink:

[Argylehibby]

At last, confirmation of yesterday's thoughts


The trial continues


AD "Do you see it as an issue that a club asset is being used to pay off the debt?" Betts "The bank hadcontrol of those assets anyway"


Break

Imagine even contemplating that they would pay off their debt using their own funds / assets rather than someone else's!

[Moulin Yarns]

Morning pt 2

Proceedings resume to hear further evidencefrom former Rangers' director Phil Betts.

The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, asksif it was an issue to him that Wavetower were not providing any funds? Betts"No"

Email to witness says deal is £20m"The reality is Wavetower will not be providing this amount, instead willcome from the club direct"

Betts says he can't recall receiving theemail but accepts he must have.

1. AD"Was it your understanding that Ticketus was not to be mentioned?"Donald Findlay rises to object to question. LadyStacey upholds objection
2.
3. Bettssays he believed there was a non-disclosure agreement but didn't see it. AD Whotold you about the NDA? Betts "He is not in the room today."
AD: "Can I make it clear to you, you have immunity,you can't be prosecuted over this." Betts says he can't remember signingloan deal

Betts adds "I'm a little bit stressedat the moment

AD "Did you act on a frolic of yourown" Betts "Frolic?" AD "You just did it on your own"Betts "I don't remember

Advocate Depute ends, Donald Findlay QCrises to cross-examine

Findlay opens "I have no intention topry into your business affairs..but crucial jury have all the information theyneed."

Findlay "Who has £33m in cash?"Betts "Nobody I know" DF "Possibly a gentleman from Medellin,but that might ring alarm bells" (Columbian drug cartel?)

Findlay "Did you ever want to be thedirector of a football club?" Betts "No"

Betts says he first found out about Whyte'splan to buy Rangers from Vincent Bull (Escrow)







Ends (WHIT???)

[Iain G]

Morning pt 2

Proceedings resume to hear further evidencefrom former Rangers' director Phil Betts.

The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, asksif it was an issue to him that Wavetower were not providing any funds? Betts"No"

Email to witness says deal is £20m"The reality is Wavetower will not be providing this amount, instead willcome from the club direct"

Betts says he can't recall receiving theemail but accepts he must have.

1. AD"Was it your understanding that Ticketus was not to be mentioned?"Donald Findlay rises to object to question. LadyStacey upholds objection
2.
3. Bettssays he believed there was a non-disclosure agreement but didn't see it. AD Whotold you about the NDA? Betts "He is not in the room today."
AD: "Can I make it clear to you, you have immunity,you can't be prosecuted over this." Betts says he can't remember signingloan deal

Betts adds "I'm a little bit stressedat the moment

AD "Did you act on a frolic of yourown" Betts "Frolic?" AD "You just did it on your own"Betts "I don't remember

Advocate Depute ends, Donald Findlay QCrises to cross-examine

Findlay opens "I have no intention topry into your business affairs..but crucial jury have all the information theyneed."

Findlay "Who has £33m in cash?"Betts "Nobody I know" DF "Possibly a gentleman from Medellin,but that might ring alarm bells" (Columbian drug cartel?)

Findlay "Did you ever want to be thedirector of a football club?" Betts "No"

Betts says he first found out about Whyte'splan to buy Rangers from Vincent Bull (Escrow)







Ends (WHIT???)

They are all a bunch of liars, cowards and shysters by the sounds of this whole transcript!

Sure they are all proper Rangers-minded people though so that's all ok :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Post lunch perusings

Proceedings resume to hear furthercross-examination from Donald Findlay QC of former Rangers' director Phil Betts

Betts says initial proposal to Ticketus wasfor £10m towards the purchase of Rangers.

Witness says there is nothing unusual about3rd party funding only being available once deal completed

Findlay: "Murray gave away Rangers fora joke, a pound slid across a table"

Findlay "A central element to all thiswas that Rangers were in debt to the bank for £18m. The debt was cleared."Betts "Yes"

Findlay on debt repayment, "Was it notbetter to keep money in house rather than pay it in interest to the bank."Betts "Yes"

Findlay "Wavetower could​ have writtenthe debt off?" Betts "I don't think Ticketus would have been happywith that."

Findlay it could be said selling seasontickets in advance would cut your income, but would reduce payments to thebank"

Findlay "Do you know much aboutfootball" Betts "I'm a Tottenham supporter" (that’ll be a no then J )

Findlay suggests if Rangers "went deepinto the Champions League" that would overcome the sale of the seasontickets. Would be "debt free"

Findlay "Your taking a gamble, butmany business plans involved a gamble" Betts "Correct"

DF 'You get rid of the debt, make it moreattractive to investors and get Champions League money, that was the businessplan.'



TBC

[Moulin Yarns]

Betts on the Ibrox takeover data room:"It was poor, there didn't seem to be enough in it."


Witness says he found out about the"small tax case" at the end of a conference call with Murray Group

Findlay "So someone said, by the wayyou owe HMRC £2.8m, have a nice weekend" Betts "Yes" J

Findlay "Did David Grier know aboutthe Ticketus deal" Betts "Yes" Findlay "Was he any use atall?" Betts "Not particularly"

Betts says he only found out about the"substantial increase" in the Rangers CEO's contract after thetakeover.

Witness says was asked by Whyte to join theRangers board before the takeover. Doesn't remember signing any forms.

Findlay "If was to spend £5m onplayers should I just wander about a public park saying 'do you want to signfor Rangers son?"

Findlay "The bank was paid, the stadium was fixed,the tax case was appealed and players were signed."

Findlay "Did you obtain additionalfunding?" Betts says £2m was sourced from "Close Brothers" inmid 2011.

Findlay "It's up to people to decideif Mr Whyte's business model was better than the one before"

"Was not a club that was hale andhearty but struggling badly..in huge debt"

Findlay notes Rangers price reduced from£5m to £1 due to health and safety issue (£1.7m) and tax case (£2.8m) "Thatadds up to £4.5m. They just threw 500k out of the window"

Lady Stacey intervenes "Is there aquestion in there Mr Findlay?"




Fin

[Moulin Yarns]

And last for the week

Proceedings resume Donald Findlay asks PhilBetts if Ticketus was a respected firm Betts "Yes"

Findlay "Was the club in a betterposition after the deal?" Betts "Yes"

Betts on keeping Ticketus involvementconfidential "I think most football clubs do it"

Betts says the £2m sourced from CloseBrothers was used for "stadium repairs"

Betts agrees the board meeting whoseminutes are dated on the Saturday was a "notional meeting"

Betts says he would be "disappointedin himself" if he signed a document he hadn't read "at least someof"

Findlay on paying the Ticketus money to thebank "it had to go via a fairly circuitous route?" Betts"Yes"

Findlay "No-one would accept obviousillegality in this transaction?" Betts "No"

Findlay ends by asking why the witness saidTicketus would have said no to Murray doing the same deal "They told meso"

Donald Findlay ends his cross-examination.Advocate Depute rises to re-examine




AD "Football is an emotivematter," more than just a normal business?" Betts "Yes"

AD suggests this explains why Murray wantedassurances over what happened after club was sold. Betts agrees

AD Asks what the witness thinks Murraywould have thought about Ticketus Findlay objects Judge allows question

Betts "They were getting pressure fromelsewhere to complete the transaction"

AD "They didn't get the chance becauseit was concealed from them" Ends re-examination

AD says he should be able to close theCrown case next week, has 8 witnesses left. Court adjourns

[ancient hibee]

The Crown has made a complete gubbins of this.They've given immunity to a succession of witnesses who then will not give the evidence that the Crown wants.Most of them sound like they're appearing for the defence.

[Eyrie]

The Crown has made a complete gubbins of this.They've given immunity to a succession of witnesses who then will not give the evidence that the Crown wants.Most of them sound like they're appearing for the defence.

Honour amongst thieves?

[JimBHibees]

The Crown has made a complete gubbins of this.They've given immunity to a succession of witnesses who then will not give the evidence that the Crown wants.Most of them sound like they're appearing for the defence.

Probably the plan all along. Another carpet lifting exercise no doubt.

[Hibernianinc]

Sorry for the really basic question, but who do we want to win this?

Rephrased, which outcome is worst for TRFC?

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry for the really basic question, but who do we want to win this?

Rephrased, which outcome is worst for TRFC?
If you mean the current entity, I'm not sure that there is a preferred outcome.

There is a fanciful scenario whereby, as a result of this particular case, BDO start civil proceedings against some of the individuals involved. If that were to happen, Oldco might be in a position to buy back their assets. But that's for Series 8....we're only on Series 5.

To answer your question, it's a bit like watching Hearts play Rangers. We want them all to kick **** out of each other....which is what is happening...and for them all to get red cards. The result is almost irrelevant [emoji48]



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Stonewall]

The Crown has made a complete gubbins of this.They've given immunity to a succession of witnesses who then will not give the evidence that the Crown wants.Most of them sound like they're appearing for the defence.

It's beginning to look that way. I wonder how many millions this has cost/ wasted.

fascinating stuff though.

[PatHead]

It's beginning to look that way. I wonder how many millions this has cost/ wasted.

fascinating stuff though.

Not as big a waste as tracking down supporters that were on the pitch.

[Stonewall]

Not as big a waste as tracking down supporters that were on the pitch.

The pursuit of those invading the pitch is certainly more futile, although I may re-vist that opinion if we get a not proven verdict.

[Treadstone]

The pursuit of those invading the pitch is certainly more futile, although I may re-vist that opinion if we get a not proven verdict.

I did laugh at that but only because John Wilson got a not proven after admitting assaulting Neil Lennon.

[Famous Fiver]

DF will have a spring in his step for the next instalment of the CW trial.

Might just swing things for his client!!

[Moulin Yarns]

a new week in the life of Craigie




next witness for the Crown, John Newlands

Newlands tells the court he is 62 and is a"corporate financier"

Newlands says he raises funds for small andmedium sized enterprises Met Craig Whyte in 2010

Newlands says he met Whyte through a PeterShakeshaft. (no giggling at the back J )

Newlands points to Craig Whyte in court,sitting in the dock between two security staff

The witness confirms he provided someemails to the police Advocate Depute asks for court screens to be turned on

Letter shown to court from "City oneSecurities" to Murraym Says Liberty Capital has "up to £10m" tosupport a rights issue for Rangers

Newlands says he wrote the letter afterWhyte told him he had assets of £60m. Wrote letter in "good faith" (now we know the definition of “Off theRadar wealth!)

Newlands says when letter written he was"under pressure" for rent from his landlord. "Did not have thecash to meet obligations"

Newlands says he asked Whyte for £2,100 foroffice rent bill. Jury and witness leavecourt while a legal matter is discussed.

To be continued

[greenginger]

Shakeshaft ! brilliant name for character in this farce. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Live tweeting being allowed again *confused*


Jury return to court, Advocate Depute risesto take further evidence from Mr Newlands

Newlands confirm that in March 2011 hiscompany was at risk of eviction from its offices. Whyte offered to write acheque

However cheque would take 3 days to clear,which would have taken too long.

Newlands says "Craig transferred fundselectronically" to pay the rent. He then signed letter saying LibertyCapital had £30m in assets

Newlands says he based asset letter wasbased on a draft emailed to him by Mr Whyte.

Newlands says he does not recall seeingproof of the £10m but "would be very surprised" if he had writtenletter without seeing it.

Donald Findlay QC for the defence rises tocross-examine Mr Newlands.

Newlands says his company was regulated bythe Financial Conduct Authority, "They have more power than HMRC andCustoms put together" Findlay "I don't know if that scares you but itscares me...they are a wolf you wouldn't want to invite into yourhenhouse"

Findlay "In a letter of comfort areyou guaranteeing anything?" Newlands "No"

Findlay "If you have a friend who isshort of cash you would help them out..not a vast sum of money £2,100"Newlands agrees

Findlay "The business in non-technicalterm was skint?" Newlands "It was a commercial transaction"

Findlay suggests that it is understandablethat Newlands can not recall what documents he saw 6 years ago.

Newlands says the regulator allows clientsto self-certify there level of funds. Witness ends his evidence.


(Well, that was boring)

Next witness Stuart McClean

[lord bunberry]

Shakeshaft ! brilliant name for character in this farce. :greengrin
He must've had a difficult childhood with that name :greengrin

[BonnieFitbaTeam]

He must've had a difficult childhood with that name :greengrin


He's lucky he had a childhood at all given that his father is Mr. Shakeshaft !

[rodhibs55]

He must've had a difficult childhood with that name :greengrin

Could have been so much different, imaging a letter change from h to n.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

Could have been so much different, imaging a letter change from h to n.

Shakesnaft?

[lord bunberry]

He's lucky he had a childhood at all given that his father is Mr. Shakeshaft !
:faf::faf:

[lord bunberry]

Could have been so much different, imaging a letter change from h to n.
That's his porn name.:greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Next witness Stuart McClean

Mr McLean tells the court he is 42 and asolicitor.

Mclean says he joined Dundas and Wilson in2004, became a partner in 2008

Mclean says his firm had a long termrelationship with the Murray Group of companies. Worked on sale of shareholdingin Rangers

Mclean "The team at Murray wanted theshareholding disposed of" says he worked on the legal side of this as partof a larger team.

Mclean says he has to "take care inhis response" due to legal privilege. Can't answer last question. Jury andwitness asked to leave court

Jury return to court. Lady Stacey tellswitness, Mr Mclean, that she understands his obligation of confidentiality but Notescourt has heard from David Murray and other witnesses, directs Mclean legalprivilege has effectively been waived

Mclean is directed to answer questionsrelating to sale of Rangers shares unless there is an objection or judgeintervenes.

Mclean says that he still has"difficulties" over discussing interactions with clients. LadyStacey: "If you are in doubt please let me know

Mclean says this was his first involvementin the sale of a football club.

Advocate Depute asks what Murray wanted toachieve with the sale of Rangers Mclean refers to Share Purchase Agreement

Mclean asked about Andrew Ellis. Witnesssays he expressed interest in buying Rangers in 2010 Doesn't recall if therewas a meeting.

Mclean says he became aware of Craig Whyteafter Ellis organised a meeting with him and David Murray in the South ofFrance.

Says his firm provided a"chaperone" for the first Whyte/Murray meeting

Mclean asked if he thought Whyte's offerwas "serious" Lady Stacey intervenes and says would not be for thiswitness to judge that

Mclean, "Questions were asked aboutthe funding," of the bid Says letters were received from solicitorsColloyer Bristow.

Witness shown email to him by solicitorGary Withey, October 2010. Says Liberty Capital hold sufficient funds for theacquisition of shares

Says funds are held in a UK bank account and are"under the direct control" of LCL Adds "The assets of targetwill not be used for the borrowings of bidco"

Mclean, "I took the email at facevalue."

Court showing Mclean's reply to Witheyemail. Says Murray requires "additional certainty" on funds availableto "bidco"

Mclean says at this point the"Enterprise value" of Rangers was £33m, debt was £27m, so price forshares being discussed £5.5n

Mclean email notes the financialinstitution backing Whyte "remained anonymous" AD "Did youask" Mclean "This indicates we did"

Court adjourns for lunch

[Moulin Yarns]

Afternoon



Proceedings resume with the AdvocateDepute, Alex Prentice QC continuing his examination of solicitor Stuart Mclean

Before evidence resumes Mr Mclean raisesthe issue of legal privilege, says he doesn't think a "waiver" ispossible.

Lady Stacey asks the jury and witness toleave the court while a legal issue is discussed.





I’m going for a Contempt of court here :wink:

[Billy Whizz]

When is the trial due to end?

[CropleyWasGod]

When is the trial due to end?

Think 11 weeks have been set aside.

We're on week 4?

The Crown says it should be able to finish up this week. Then it's the Findlay show.

[HoboHarry]

Think 11 weeks have been set aside.

We're on week 4?

The Crown says it should be able to finish up this week. Then it's the Findlay show.
If thus far has only been witnesses for the prosecution side then the AD must be sh*****g himself at the thought of Findlay rampaging over his case next week.......:greengrin

[Geo_1875]

He's lucky he had a childhood at all given that his father is Mr. Shakeshaft !

I'm sure I knew his sister a long time ago.

[Moulin Yarns]

Jury comes back into court

McLean says the purchase of Rangersinvolved a lot of "to and fro"

Mclean says that during the negotiations he"continued to ask" about the source of Whyte's funds

Email 28 March 2011, email from McLean toGary Withey, subject "Charlotte" "Obviously funding is the keyissue at the moment"

Withey replies, "We are still happywith the funding and indeed the club should be also.

Mclean reply "on funding, it is theevidence of this which is key at this point"

Lady Stacey: "a 'client account' isvery much a term of art" asks witness to explain "as you do thisevery day"

Lady Stacey: "a 'letter of comfort' isvery much a term of art" asks witness to explain "as you do thisevery day"

Email from Gary Withey to McLean 30 March2011, says he is "suffering the vagaries of bank transfers" saysHoare and Co "slow to inform us"

Next Withey email on funds: says they havereceived some but not the balance "still chasing it through the bankingsystem"

Withey email 31 March: "I am highlyconfident that in the course of today..the funds to complete will be inplace."

Next Withey email "I am expecting toconfirm the availability of funds within the next 30 mins"

Next Withey email "I am pleased toconfirm I now have access to available funds to complete the transaction"

McLean says he was concerned Withey said hehad "access to funds" rather than they were in the bank account"

31 March email from McLean to Withey asksfor confirmation of "quantum" of funds available, including £2.8m fortax liability

McLean email to Withey 4 April 2011:"Key to be able to complete will be getting £27.5m into your clientaccount tomorrow..please confirm"

Withey reply "I have had theconversation" McLean agrees is not an answer to his question.

5 April email to Withey "Can youplease confirm funds have been sent to your client account." Last 4 wordsunderlined

6 April email McLean to Withey "Davidreminded me to confirm..£27.5m now sits in your client account"

reply "I have explained a number oftimes I have full visibility on the money...being in my client account does notmake it more secure."

Next email to Withey on funds "This isnot what was promised..when will the funds be in your account?"

Withey reply "Apologies for the delay,but that's the banking system for you" Continues "I confirm that Inow hold all completion monies"

McLean reply "Can you confirm how muchmoney you hold?"




Court takes a short break

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedings resume

Next email McLean to Withey: "Doesyour email mean a minimum of £27.5m is held to the order of Wavetower in yourclient account?"

"My clients have made it clear againthey want to know how much money is in your client account"

McLean says his client had an issue withchange to Share Purchase Agreement by Withey to "up to £5m" availablefor working capital.

Email to Withey "Are you able to namethe financial institution that has given this confirmation" McLean saysnot sure what this refers to

Court shown copy of Share PurchaseAgreement between Whyte and Murray, clause 6 creates a "bindingobligation"

McLean denies clause is "window dressing"says is a contractual obligation.

McLean says the Share Purchase Agreementstates Whyte must transfer funds "immediately after" deal is funded

McLean says that he did not know Ticketuswere supplying funds for the takeover: did know Rangers used them for"short term capital"



Court adjourns until 10am tomorrow

[Iain G]

Is the season ticket money considered an asset of the club when said season tickets have not yet been sold for the new season and are not yet an actual "asset" of the club/company?

Craiggie is just borrowing against future potential income? Or is that far too simple :greengrin

[Jamesie]

The Crown says it should be able to finish up this week. Then it's the Findlay show.

Is that from something said on twitter or was it mentioned in court?

[CropleyWasGod]

Is that from something said on twitter or was it mentioned in court?

Think GF said it in one of his posts last week, which summarised Doleman's Tweets, which reported the Court activity.

So.... both :greengrin

[Bostonhibby]

Shakesnaft?
Donald Findlay would be a nun

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Is the season ticket money considered an asset of the club when said season tickets have not yet been sold for the new season and are not yet an actual "asset" of the club/company?

Craiggie is just borrowing against future potential income? Or is that far too simple :greengrin

The ST money is an asset, in that it is cash in the bank. It's also a liability, in that, if the club doesn't actually fulfil any fixtures, it's repayable to the buyers.

CW was indeed borrowing against that income, and that would be okay in normal circumstances. However, the point is he didn't tell the club's owners that that's what he was doing; he told them the cash was coming from his own resources. That's the basis of the alleged fraud.

[Iain G]

The ST money is an asset, in that it is cash in the bank. It's also a liability, in that, if the club doesn't actually fulfil any fixtures, it's repayable to the buyers.

CW was indeed borrowing against that income, and that would be okay in normal circumstances. However, the point is he didn't tell the club's owners that that's what he was doing; he told them the cash was coming from his own resources. That's the basis of the alleged fraud.

Do they not become his own resources ones he owns the thing though? :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Do they not become his own resources ones he owns the thing though? :greengrin

They become the club's resources, sure. But it's the way he acquired access to those resources that is the sneaky, allegedly criminal, issue.

[HoboHarry]

They become the club's resources, sure. But it's the way he acquired access to those resources that is the sneaky, allegedly criminal, issue.
You still believe that the owners (Murray et al) didn't know what he was doing?

[CropleyWasGod]

You still believe that the owners (Murray et al) didn't know what he was doing?

I've said from the start (circa 1897) that SDM had to have known.

I'm sitting on the fence, though, as to whether that can be proved (either way) in Court. :rolleyes:

[greenginger]

I've said from the start (circa 1897) that SDM had to have known.

I'm sitting on the fence, though, as to whether that can be proved (either way) in Court. :rolleyes:


Will the various taped conversations be admissible as evidence ? :cb

[ancient hibee]

When you think of the hoops you have to jump through when buying a house it's instructive to see that you can buy a football club as long as you can find some joker looking for his rent money to tell the seller you've got the money.

[Moulin Yarns]

Think GF said it in one of his posts last week, which summarised Doleman's Tweets, which reported the Court activity.

So.... both :greengrin

Yeah. AD said he would finish his witnesses this week.

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedings resume with the Advocate Deputecontinuing to take evidence from solicitor Stuart Mclean.

AD asks the witness to look at the SharePurchase Agreement between Murray and Whyte. Highlights section "fundsimmediately available"

McLean says this was a "warranty"from the buyer.

Continues "It's a statement that thereare no conditions attached to the cash resources"

AD asks if clause was breached byconditions on the funds? Donald Findlay rises to object saying this is theissue the jury are to decide.


Jury and witness asked to leave the courtwhile a legal matter is discussed



Jury and witness return to court



The Advocate Depute asks McLean if the £1mfrom Merchant Turnaround held by Whyte was immediately availableunconditionally? Witness no.



AD asks same question about £3m from JeromePension fund, McLean "Those are not funds available to the purchaser on anunconditional basis



AD asks same question about the £24m fromTicketus McLean asks for question to repeated Lady Stacey "This is notmeant to be an oral exam"



Witness given "agreed facts"document.



Witness agrees the £24m+ from Ticketus wasalso not available "immediately and unconditionally" as specified inpurchase agreement




Advocate Depute ends, Defence QC DonaldFindlay rises to cross-examine

[Iain G]

Proceedings resume with the Advocate Deputecontinuing to take evidence from solicitor Stuart Mclean.

AD asks the witness to look at the SharePurchase Agreement between Murray and Whyte. Highlights section "fundsimmediately available"

McLean says this was a "warranty"from the buyer.

Continues "It's a statement that thereare no conditions attached to the cash resources"

AD asks if clause was breached byconditions on the funds? Donald Findlay rises to object saying this is theissue the jury are to decide.


Jury and witness asked to leave the courtwhile a legal matter is discussed



Jury and witness return to court



The Advocate Depute asks McLean if the £1mfrom Merchant Turnaround held by Whyte was immediately availableunconditionally? Witness no.



AD asks same question about £3m from JeromePension fund, McLean "Those are not funds available to the purchaser on anunconditional basis



AD asks same question about the £24m fromTicketus McLean asks for question to repeated Lady Stacey "This is notmeant to be an oral exam"



Witness given "agreed facts"document.



Witness agrees the £24m+ from Ticketus wasalso not available "immediately and unconditionally" as specified inpurchase agreement




Advocate Depute ends, Defence QC DonaldFindlay rises to cross-examine




So other than the shiny £1 coin non of the funds were available immediately as required yet nobody on the Rangers / Murray side of the table really delved into this?! I don't believe that for one second, of if they didn't they failed to do their due diligence, or did they not ask the questions as Murray was so desperate to offload the club to the first patsy who looked vaguely plausible...?

[Moulin Yarns]

So other than the shiny £1 coin non of the funds were available immediately as required yet nobody on the Rangers / Murray side of the table really delved into this?! I don't believe that for one second, of if they didn't they failed to do their due diligence, or did they not ask the questions as Murray was so desperate to offload the club to the first patsy who looked vaguely plausible...?

Wait for the next instalment, when DF gets going :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Now for the juicy stuff!







Donald Findlay asks McLean "why didyou omit words" when quoting the share purchase agreement? McLean "Idon't understand the question"


Findlay says McLean did not mention thephrase "third party" is in quoted clause McLean: Not relevant Findlay"should we just ignore them?

McLean "The key point I'd that thefunds are not immediately available" Findlay "We are going round incircles.a shoddy piece of drafting"


Findlay "How could I have immediatelyavailable other people's money?"

Findlay "The point is when a legaldocument is created the words should be clear?" McLean "I think itis"

Findlay "After a contract like this issigned no-one is going to turn up with a bag of cash?" McLean "Not inmy experience"


Findlay Says money will have to betransfered electronically McLean "Yes, that seems correct"

Findlay "If the contract is signed at6pm in a Friday night when are you going to get your money?" McLean"As soon as the banks open"

Findlay "What if I have a flightbooked to the Caribbean, when do I get my money" McLean Agrees it will beon Monday


Findlay: What if your client finds out I'moff to South America to do a drug deal and cancels? McLean Would have to keepto undertaking

McLean "The implications of asolicitor giving undertakings can be very serious" Says firm could finditself liable

Findlay says if money not transferred untilthe Monday "can I rip up the contract and walk away?" McLean"Not if you've signed it"


Findlay "Where does it say in thecontract that obligations are concluded when the money is paid" McLeanlooks at the contract

Points to clause 4 part 10 Points to clause4 part 10

Findlay says that section refers to sharepurchase "the price of which was a pound"



Adds "I think most people could pay apound without running into money laundering regulations" (LOL)


Findlay Were does it say money should bedelivered immediately? McLean points to clause 3.1 DF "That is the poundagain

McLean now points to clause 6.4 Which says£5m of working capital should be "contributed at completion"

Findlay has Colloyer Bristow undertakingput on screen. Says, "We will hold" £5m for the playing squad.

Findlay asks what is the "newentity" described in the agreement which says: "A successor to thefootball activities of the company"

McLean "I don't think it existed atthis point" J

Findlay "When does that money have tobe paid?" McLean "When it's called upon" Court takes it'smorning break

[Billy Whizz]

Any significance on John Gillagan stepping down from the Rangers Board?

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedings resume with defence counselDonald Findlay QC continuing his cross-examination of solicitor Stuart Mclean

Findlay suggests that when lawyers draw upa contract the words used "reflect their clients intentions" McLean,"Things can change"

Findlay "It moved from £5m to £1,that's a pretty major change"

McLean says if a mistake is made it may bepossible to withdraw from a contract

DF "Surely your job as a lawyer is tomake sure there aren't any mistakes? (don’t you love one solicitor cross examininganother solicitor?)

Findlay: a contract should reflect theviews of both parties "What is the point if both sides lawyers startarguing over what it means?"

McLean "That wouldn't be veryefficient"

McLean agrees he was one of the"principle drafters" of the Share Purchase Agreement.

Findlay asks witness what was meant inagreement when it started "third party funding?"

McLean it's talking about where the fundsare coming from Findlay "What else could it mean?"

Findlay​ "If you don't want thirdparty funding you don't put it in the contract?"

Findlay "Could you omit references tothird party funders?" McLean "In discussions, yes"

McLean agrees he has heard of "ProjectCharlotte"

Findlay shows what he says is an earlydraft of the Share Purchase Agreement, notes no reference to third partyfunding.. McLean cant recall it

Findlay "When were the words thirdparty funding added?" McLean says he can't recall Findlay "Who wantedthen added?" McLean says he does not think it was him but not sureexactly.

Findlay asks if Third party funding added"you would have asked for an explanation?" McLean "I wouldlikely have asked" Adds he cannot remember getting an explanation.

Findlay "immediately available"means money will be transferred at "first available opportunity?"McLean, "I'm not sure if that's true*

Findlay "If I sign a contract at 6pmon a Friday night, unless I've come from Mars, I know funds won't betransferred until Monday morning" Adds "How much more immediate doyou want?"

McLean "That depends on what theseller wants"

Findlay "Where does it say that theagreement is only completed when £33m is in the buyers bank account?"McLean "I don't recognise figure"

Findlay "By the Monday the bank hadbeen paid off..how much more immediate do you want than that"

Lady Stacey "If you both talk at oncewe can't hear either of you" suggests adjourning for lunch

Court adjourns for lunch Back at 2pm

[Iain G]

Proceedings resume with defence counselDonald Findlay QC continuing his cross-examination of solicitor Stuart Mclean

Findlay suggests that when lawyers draw upa contract the words used "reflect their clients intentions" McLean,"Things can change"

Findlay "It moved from £5m to £1,that's a pretty major change"

McLean says if a mistake is made it may bepossible to withdraw from a contract

DF "Surely your job as a lawyer is tomake sure there aren't any mistakes? (don’t you love one solicitor cross examininganother solicitor?)

Findlay: a contract should reflect theviews of both parties "What is the point if both sides lawyers startarguing over what it means?"

McLean "That wouldn't be veryefficient"

McLean agrees he was one of the"principle drafters" of the Share Purchase Agreement.

Findlay asks witness what was meant inagreement when it started "third party funding?"

McLean it's talking about where the fundsare coming from Findlay "What else could it mean?"

Findlay​ "If you don't want thirdparty funding you don't put it in the contract?"

Findlay "Could you omit references tothird party funders?" McLean "In discussions, yes"

McLean agrees he has heard of "ProjectCharlotte"

Findlay shows what he says is an earlydraft of the Share Purchase Agreement, notes no reference to third partyfunding.. McLean cant recall it

Findlay "When were the words thirdparty funding added?" McLean says he can't recall Findlay "Who wantedthen added?" McLean says he does not think it was him but not sureexactly.

Findlay asks if Third party funding added"you would have asked for an explanation?" McLean "I wouldlikely have asked" Adds he cannot remember getting an explanation.

Findlay "immediately available"means money will be transferred at "first available opportunity?"McLean, "I'm not sure if that's true*

Findlay "If I sign a contract at 6pmon a Friday night, unless I've come from Mars, I know funds won't betransferred until Monday morning" Adds "How much more immediate doyou want?"

McLean "That depends on what theseller wants"

Findlay "Where does it say that theagreement is only completed when £33m is in the buyers bank account?"McLean "I don't recognise figure"

Findlay "By the Monday the bank hadbeen paid off..how much more immediate do you want than that"

Lady Stacey "If you both talk at oncewe can't hear either of you" suggests adjourning for lunch

Court adjourns for lunch Back at 2pm



DF seems to be driving a rather large bulldozer through this :greengrin

[Dashing Bob S]

As much as I love a good protracted Hun civil war, I wish we could just fast forward to a disaster movie ending.

[Moulin Yarns]

As much as I love a good protracted Hun civil war, I wish we could just fast forward to a disaster movie ending.

https://tvaraj.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/sinking-of-rms-titanic.jpg

[Jack]

As much as I love a good protracted Hun civil war, I wish we could just fast forward to a disaster movie ending.

Are you running out of popcorn?

You should have bought the GIANT size :-)

[Deansy]

I'm just surprised David Murray permitted this court-case to be heard !

[Moulin Yarns]

Afternoon session


Proceedings resume. Donald​ Findlay QCcontinues his cross-examination of solicitor Stuart Mclean

Findlay opens by asking about"Solicitor client accounts" McLean confirms these are by lawyers usedfor "transactional purposes"

McLean confirms funds in a "clientaccount" are still owned by the client until they agree for them to betransferred.

McLean agrees that a client can withdrawmoney from a client account at any time before payment made, even if a contracthas been signed

McLean says that when a solicitor makes anundertaking, in effect, the ownership of the money in the client accounttransfers to seller

Witness shown undertaking letter fromWhyte's lawyer, Gary Withey, 6 May 2011

McLean says he was on holiday from Apriluntil 6 May. Wasn't "very involved"

Lady Stacey "Sorry I don't understanda word of this." Asks Findlay to clarify.

Findlay "We've heard of minutes ofboard meetings that never took place and documents signed days before they aredated"

Findlay now taking McLean through variouslegal documents.

Findlay says Rangers owned £6.5m on day oftakeover "How much more immediate can you get than that?" McLean"According to these documents"

McLean, "I don't recognise that date,well I do because I know it occurred" (true LOLmoment)

McLean on Rangers £18m+ debt:"Wavetower were buying this in effect"

Findlay "When the bank got their moneyback they basically shut down every account they could get their handson."

McLean agrees that the Colloyer Bristowassignation letter on 6 May meant that the £18m+ funds "were the bank'smoney"

Findlay "On 6 May 2011 ColloyerBristow was holding £27.5m on behalf of Rangers and the bank. How much moreimmediate can you get than that?

Court takes a short break

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedings resume, solicitor Stuart Mcleanstill on the witness stand

Court shown an email from Gary Withey tovarious people at Murray, Oct 2010, confirms "bidco" has"sufficient funds"

Findlay moves on to the takeover "dataroom" McLean says this was created by the football club.

McLean says he would advise those settingup a data room not to put in "sensitive material" into it too early."Risk of misuse"

Email 17 March 2011 from Mike McGill toMcLean and others."I think we should front up about the small taxcase"

"New information has come to lightwhich would suggest liability...in the region of £2.5m"

McLean says that it was around this time hebecame aware of this potential liability Findlay "They kept it from you aswell?" (DF is a comedian today)

Findlay suggests bill from HMRC was issuedin 2010. Suggests tone of email is "We better tell purchaser about this incase they find out?'

McLean disagrees. Findlay "Look at thewords..this is the middle of March, they've known since 2010"

McLean "Your asking me tospeculate" Findlay "I'm asking you a question"

Email Whyte's lawyer Gary Withey, 17 March2011, from McLean. "new information has come to light..a tax liabilitywill arise of £2.5m"

Findlay "Is this accurateinformation?" McLean says he was passing on what McGill asked him to

McLean says he is not in a position tocomment on accuracy of information.

Findlay "Forgive me Mr McLean it'sbeen a long day for everyone. Is the answer to my question yes?"

McLean says there was an arrangementbetween Lloyds and Murray that the disposal of Rangers would "allow otherthings to happen"

Findlay "The Murray metals deal"McLean Says he doesn't recall "with any specificity"

Email from McGill to witness, April 2011."disclosure of certain aspects of the restructuring would not be helpfulto Murray or Lloyd's

Continues "I don't believe Lloyd'swill be comfortable sharing details, would be nervous it became public forother entities to use as a stick to beat them."

Email from McLean to the takeover panel"We have confirmed does reference the club..no rule 16 specialarrangements"

Note continues "possible actions toensure Murray Group has a positive net worth..[if] the sale of Rangers leadsto..a negative net worth

Findlay "Murray metals conditionalsale agreement" depends on sale of. Rangers

McLean "I'm not sure the two areconnected"

Findlay quotes document "CSA was toencourage David Murray to continue to exercise his influence" in thedisposal of RFC.

McLean agrees that is what documentsuggests

Findlay tells the court he will not finishwith this witness today. Court adjourns until tomorrow at 10am



Bring the popcorn

[ACLeith]

or did they not ask the questions as Murray was so desperate to offload the club to the first patsy who looked vaguely plausible...?

Nail on head Iain

[Deansy]

Maybe a question for CWG - regardless of the outcome of this 'trial' (farce) do you think Murray will still be able to claim he 'was duped' ??

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe a question for CWG - regardless of the outcome of this 'trial' (farce) do you think Murray will still be able to claim he 'was duped' ??
The trial is about essentially that. As far as I can guess so far from DF, he seems to be going down the road of "how can you defraud someone who already knows what you're doing?". If that is his angle, and CW is found guilty, then SDM can legitimately claim he was duped. He can't if there's a not guilty verdict.

The trial is less than halfway through. What makes you think that it's a farce?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

The trial is about essentially that. As far as I can guess so far from DF, he seems to be going down the road of "how can you defraud someone who already knows what you're doing?". If that is his angle, and CW is found guilty, then SDM can legitimately claim he was duped. He can't if there's a not guilty verdict.

The trial is less than halfway through. What makes you think that it's a farce?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Admittedly it's because I haven't gone into it with an open-mind (sorry but a life-long loathing/despisal of all-things Hun makes me blinkered), from day-one I've considered the entire affair a con/scam, designed just to shed the debt they'd built-up in buying victory/success. A seasoned business-man like David Murray being 'Duped' ?. Sorry but I just don't buy that. Then there's LNS and his verdict that 'Rangers didn't achieve a sporting advantage' ??.

That and the number of 'I don't remember/recall' pleas being made (again, admittedly, I'm not sure of who's-who that's making them !). I know nothing of court-trials but these are, in theory, top business-people/professionals and I've always thought that what makes them more successful/different than the average-person is their 'attention-to-detail/memory-retention' ?

[jacomo]

Admittedly it's because I haven't gone into it with an open-mind (sorry but a life-long loathing/despisal of all-things Hun makes me blinkered), from day-one I've considered the entire affair a con/scam, designed just to shed the debt they'd built-up in buying victory/success. A seasoned business-man like David Murray being 'Duped' ?. Sorry but I just don't buy that. Then there's LNS and his verdict that 'Rangers didn't achieve a sporting advantage' ??.

That and the number of 'I don't remember/recall' pleas being made (again, admittedly, I'm not sure of who's-who that's making them !). I know nothing of court-trials but these are, in theory, top business-people/professionals and I've always thought that what makes them more successful/different than the average-person is their 'attention-to-detail/memory-retention' ?


Company bosses aren't immune from bad decisions. SDM made a whole heap of them.

But they are typically ruthless. SDM's whole business was in trouble so he cut himself the best deal he could.

Rangers going bust was not the plan. But SDM knew the club was in massive financial problems when he sold it.

[Deansy]

Company bosses aren't immune from bad decisions. SDM made a whole heap of them.

But they are typically ruthless. SDM's whole business was in trouble so he cut himself the best deal he could.

Rangers going bust was not the plan. But SDM knew the club was in massive financial problems when he sold it.

Agreed but did he seriously believe the 'duped' excuse would wash or do you think it was just sheer arrogance on his part - knowing that, in the Scottish Football's 'media' opinion, he could do no wrong ?

[CentreLine]

Agreed but did he seriously believe the 'duped' excuse would wash or do you think it was just sheer arrogance on his part - knowing that, in the Scottish Football's 'media' opinion, he could do no wrong ?

It does seem too that DF is laying the ground for the jury to find that SDM duped CW by not letting in about the tax liabilities?

[Moulin Yarns]

No morning updates from me today. sorry. will try and catch up this afternoon.

[Iain G]

No morning updates from me today. sorry. will try and catch up this afternoon.

Nooooooooooo! Will have to do some work now, damn your hide! 😁

[greenginger]

Addicts can get a fix with JamesDoleman.

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman

[AndyM_1875]

Admittedly it's because I haven't gone into it with an open-mind (sorry but a life-long loathing/despisal of all-things Hun makes me blinkered), from day-one I've considered the entire affair a con/scam, designed just to shed the debt they'd built-up in buying victory/success. A seasoned business-man like David Murray being 'Duped' ?. Sorry but I just don't buy that. Then there's LNS and his verdict that 'Rangers didn't achieve a sporting advantage' ??.

That and the number of 'I don't remember/recall' pleas being made (again, admittedly, I'm not sure of who's-who that's making them !). I know nothing of court-trials but these are, in theory, top business-people/professionals and I've always thought that what makes them more successful/different than the average-person is their 'attention-to-detail/memory-retention' ?

Whilst I share your view that the entire Rangers Admin thing has been little more than a cynical exercise in debt dumping, you can't be emotive or binary about this sort of thing. A decent lawyer will drive a cart and horses through anything they perceive as a weakness. I've seen Findlay in action and he is lethal in the court. Doesn't matter the case, the accused could be bang to rights but if there is a weakness in the Prosecution's case he'll tear it apart. If the evidence is not presented correctly he'll destroy the case. As for the LNS thing, that's old news now. The SFA won't be going back on that irrespective of the results of the various trials. All the howls of outrage on social media and club statements combined won't change a single thing.

Top business people often do stupid things. Rangers crashed themselves into the wall because of their own hubris. RBS similarly were at one time guided by a CEO who was similarly fuelled by arrogance (Fred Goodwin) and made arguably one of the worst decisions in Scottish Business History when he pushed through RBS's takeover of ABN AMRO.

[JeMeSouviens]

Admittedly it's because I haven't gone into it with an open-mind (sorry but a life-long loathing/despisal of all-things Hun makes me blinkered), from day-one I've considered the entire affair a con/scam, designed just to shed the debt they'd built-up in buying victory/success. A seasoned business-man like David Murray being 'Duped' ?. Sorry but I just don't buy that. Then there's LNS and his verdict that 'Rangers didn't achieve a sporting advantage' ??.

That and the number of 'I don't remember/recall' pleas being made (again, admittedly, I'm not sure of who's-who that's making them !). I know nothing of court-trials but these are, in theory, top business-people/professionals and I've always thought that what makes them more successful/different than the average-person is their 'attention-to-detail/memory-retention' ?

That's not quite what he said. I believe the gist was that as the ebt scheme was considered (mostly) legal by the FTTT, then the Old Huns didn't get an advantage that wasn't available to any other club. Of course, that club would have to live on the dubious moral edge of tax avoidance but ho hum.

tbh, although I think the last 5 Old Hun titles should be stripped and Scottish football should go back to the sanity whereby a liquidated club isn't the same thing as a new one playing in the same stadium, I very much doubt there's any appetite among the clubs generally to go back to this again. The Old Huns are dead, their fans are in purgatory watching the new lot stagger about like drunks thrown out a pub. We all know the truth (apart from the odd CWG type exception). I think that'll probably have to do.

[Moulin Yarns]

Going to miss this morning again, hunting bats!!

David Horne, Murray Group on just now.

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm back.



Not a lot happened yesterday, and I was indisposed for alarge chunk!!

Today, so far a bit about the use of Ticketus, and the sharepurchase agreement

David Horne, Murry group director on stand.

Horne says if he had known Whyte was usingTicketus funds to pay the bank debt he would have considered this "illegalfinancial assistance"

Horne says Craig Whyte's sources of fundsbreached the Share Purchase Agreement. "Wasn't the basis Murray groupintended to sell shares on"

On 5 May 2011 Horne says he received ademand for £2.8m from HMRC for the "small tax case" to be paid within30 days.

Horne says after the sale of Rangers on 6May 2011 "The Murray Group was out" Only found out about Ticketusfunds in early 2012

Court shown letter 9 February 2012 to GaryWithey from witness, refers to "reports in the press" about theTicketus funding

Asks for copies of any agreement betweenWhyte and Ticketus to confirm no breach of the Share Purchase Agreement.

Horne says he never received a response.

Advocate Depute ends, court adjourns



More to follow

[Moulin Yarns]

Defence Advocate Donald Findlay QC rises tocross-examine former Murray Group lawyer David Horne



Horne says his role was to "head up" thein-house legal team at Murray group. Agrees he was a senior advisor to DavidMurray.
Findlay"Sir David Murray was the heart of the Murray Group?" Horne "Ithink that's fair."
Horne says Murray acted as a chairman ofthe group rather than a chief executive. Agrees relied on others for day to dayrunning of business

Findlay suggests Murray had been veryinvolved in the running of Rangers, "Had a significant place in hisheart?" Horne agrees

Findlay asks Horne if he has reviewed anydocuments before giving evidence. Reply "Some, yes"

Horne agrees the 2008 financial crisis was"really biting" on the Murray Group

Horne says that selling Rangers was a"loose objective" since 2004 rights issue. Decision made no moreInvestment.

Horne says 2004 rights issue raised about£50m from existing shareholders, "but not all of them"

Horne "The club was funded and couldtrade but wasn't making profits, was spending more than it was earning"

Horne agrees the Murray Group decided notto fund the club further, decision made to find a new owner. "There wasn'tmuch interest at all"

Horne "PWC did a worldwide marketingprocess..wont say people were breaking down the doors to get in there."

Horne says fan ownership of Rangers wasconsidered, adds "was completely unrealistic."

Horne agrees Andrew Ellis, a London basedproperty dealer, was put forward as a potential buyer. Confirms meetings tookplace in Feb 2010

[Moulin Yarns]

Agrees takeover panel was informed of Ellisbid

Horne £33m bid for Rangers was receivedfrom Ellis and others in early 2010. Offered £8m Investment in playing squad

Findlay "What happened to thisbid?" Horne says he can't remember the exact detail of why it did not goahead?

Horne "Pressure was put on them tomove the thing forward," announcement made in June group no longerinterested in selling club

Horne agrees an "Independent boardcommittee" was set up to assess any bid as this was a requirement of thetakeover code.

Did not have power to stop any bid butcould "express a view"

Horne says a data room was set up for theEllis bid but they rarely visited it. Made him wonder how serious they were.

Findlay "Did Ellis and his advisorssimply disappear off the radar" Horne says there was no progress made.

Horne confirms Ian Dickson, a former lawyerfor Rangers told him a Graham Duffy was also interested in buying the clubDuffy, the court hears wanted to open discussions with the bank directly. Hornesaid he didn't think that was how things should go.

Horne agrees nothing came of Duffy bid"He was going to take over the club then raise all sort of money from thefans" (sounds like the Hearts model J )

Court told, David Moyes brother, KennyMoyes was next to approach the club. Said he had a client Ian Anderson who wasinterested (but he was ‘Living in the Past’ )

[Moulin Yarns]

Findlay Ellis bid petered out, Duffy bidfailed as "he didn't have enough money" Moyes supplied a lettersaying he had £50m However, Horne agrees, the letter turned out to be aforgery.

Horne Also some "internet stuff"suggested Mr Anderson appeared to be a "conman" Adds "It didn'tsmell right at all."

Horne said Rangers asked Price WaterhouseCooper to investigate Mr Anderson as they were worried about publicity.

Horne "We might have let Kenny Moyesdown gently as he was a victim of the con" Findlay "He wasduped?" Horne "Yes"

Horne "It was a joke really"

Horne says a Vladimir Antonov was the nextperson to approach Murray about buying the club. Offered £5.5m produced aLithuanian bank letter

Horne says he is interested in football"but not passionately" Had heard about other Lithuanian owners inScottish football, thought "oh no" J

Horne says reaction of Rangers fans wouldbe "one of horror"

Horne says Mr Antonov provided a report onhimself. Findlay "There are good bits to come"








Says FBI has expressed concern about him reSAAB

[Moulin Yarns]

Findlay says "there was a dubiousincident when a Moldovan businessman found dead, Mr Antonov's dad shot dead byChechens"

Adds "Mr Antonov might have went downwell in Govan' Laughter in court

Findlay Rangers were in a position thatmajority shareholder had decided to sell the club but all that came forward wasthis "motely crew"











Court adjourns for lunch. Back at 2pm

[Sioux]

Even Hertz are getting a mention now;

Horne says a Vladimir Antonov was the next person to approach Murray about buying the club. Offered £5.5m produced a Lithuanian bank letter

Horne says he is interested in football "but not passionately"
Had heard about other Lithuanian owners in Scottish football, thought "oh no"

Horne says reaction of Rangers fans would be "one of horror"

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedings resume with Donald Findlaycontinuing his cross-examination of former Murray Group lawyer David Horne


Findlay says he is looking at differentpieces of material as if they were an "imaginary jigsaw"

Findlay as a consequence of the financialcrisis Murray Group has to restructure, decision made Rangers should be soldHorne "yes"

Findlay No bids reach a conclusion, Murray Groupcould no longer put funds into Rangers Horne Correct

Horne "The bank's stated position wasthey didn't want to make loans to football clubs especially in Scotland"

"The bank wanted a sustainablebusiness plan in which the club would live within its means"

Horne says debt was reduced due to reducedspending on the football club, and increased European income.

Horne "You really needed to get intothe Champions League, the Europa league generated virtually nothing"

Court shown email, 10 Feb 2010, Horne toDonald McIntyre "information memorandum, project Charlotte"

The club had produced a business planFY10...supports sustainable success..without relying on UCL qualification.'

Continues no infrastructure spendingFindlay "Yet 12 months later £1.7m for infrastructure?"

Horne: No-one aware of problems with fastfood bars on tannoy"

Horne "The club won the SPL with thatplaying squad, problem was fans were looking back to days of Gascoigne andLaudrup"

Findlay: You send out a document with noindication of need to spend money on infrastructure of stadium, workingcapital, playing squad."

Findlay 12 months later you want £2m forinfrastructure and money for playing squad..this is just advertising fluff.

Horne: When you sell a house you don'tadvertise problems..the buyer should be aware.



continues

[Moulin Yarns]

" If the club didn't spend too much onplayers wouldn't need to qualify for the Champions League"

Findlay "No sustainable business planhas ever won a football match" Horne "I disagree"

Findlay moves on to the small tax case,asks what steps Horne took about it? Witness says he took advice about it

Findlay; the problem with the Rangers taxscheme was side letters had been issued Horne decision made to re-routesalaries made it taxable

Letter 26 Nov 2010 from HMRC to MurrayGroup on small tax case Asks for reply on liability by 31 Dec. Continues"Additional documents have came to light," encloses copy of these,Total liability​, £ 2,238,550. Adds "interest is running"

Horne agrees he received a copy of the HMRCletter.

Horne says HMRC had got a positive decisionin a similar case, and were saying "now is the time to pay up"

Findlay asksif "side letters" were given to HMRC or had been found by them? Hornesays found by HMRC as result of "big tax case,"

Findlay says final bill was £2.8m "howdid this happen" Horne says he thinks "club didn't have the money topay it at the time"

Adds, they also sought a legal opinion.Findlay: bill increasing on a daily basis, why did this take so long? Horne,issue for RFC board

Findlay notes meeting with counsel was 24Feb 2011, "Why on earth did it take so long" Horne says he is notentirely sure

Findlay: took from Nov 2010 to 24 Feb 2011to meet a QC to be told "Pay up or reach a settlement?"

Horne says he believed the club didn't havethe funds to meet the bill.

Findlay: It was decided to do nothing andlet the new owner pay the bill?" Horne "Effectively yes" DF"£2.2,m allowed to become £2.8m" (Goan yersel’ DF)

If Whyte deal fell through who would pay?Horne says bank of Scotland as "wouldn't wanted to see Rangers go bust ontheir watch"

Findlay "So much for robust financialplanning"

Findlay "Did you know the squad was ashambles" Horne "They won the SPL" DF ",Winning the SPLgets you nowhere, they got into Europe and got bumped our by Malmö"





Court takes a short break

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedings resume, Donald Findlaycontinues his cross-examination of David Horne

Findlay "Aren't you confusing footballsuccess with commercial success" Horne "Not so much commercialsuccess as commercial survival."

Court shown Rangers Annual Report 2010.Says "retained profit £4.2m an overall increase of £16.5m on prior year Findlay,the year before Rangers went out of the Champions League from a team from"of all places Lithuania"

Findlay: this shows how important Europe isfinancially. The next year knocked out by Malmö "11 men on the pitch"make the difference

Horne says depends on cost of squad Findlay"The further you get in Europe the more you can pay for players"

Findlay says there are many models ofrunning a football club, says Alistair Johnson one was when money is tight"Buy more players"

Adds "This is a suicide strategy"

Horne says you could also borrow from thebank but this possibility disappeared in 2008

Findlay says qualifying for Europe dependson luck of draw, how players perform on the night. Describes these as"imponderables"

Horne, in the Walter Smith era quite a fewplayers were bought after Rangers' were put out of Europe

Findlay "How on earth did Murray letthis get into such a mess, why didn't they just cut the costs?" LastStacey asks relevance?

Lady Stacey "How it got to this stagecould take us all the time we've got" DF "I'm not in the business offlying kites" Continues "That is a number of times you've asked methat in front of the jury, is not fair"

Horne "Historically Rangers and Celticwill finish first or second, so you have a guaranteed income" Findlay"Until you go to Lithuania"

Findlay " the bank might step in dueto bad publicity if Rangers went bust? Horne agrees "What would Murray doabout the bad publicity?"

Horne says the bank would have to agree toany fund injection Findlay "You want to sell the first chance youget" Horne: We did

Findlay moves on to big tax case, Hornesaid EBT scheme began in 2001, applied to executives across the group

Hoare says 85% of the EBT's were issued toRangers, 15% to rest of Murray Group. Says liability was "lots of millionsof pounds"

Findlay on big tax case "Murray waslooking at Rangers saying 'That's your problem not ours'" Horne says ismatter of company law

Horne adds the 85% 15% spilt reflected thelevel of wages football players received.

[Moulin Yarns]

Findlay moves on to Alistair Johnson, Hornesays he joined the Rangers board I 2004

Findlay He would be aware of the bank'sdesire to be out of Rangers Horne Yes

Findlay suggests Johnson would know buyingmore players when in debt was "a potentially catastrophic plan" HorneYes

Findlay Wasn't the board being run byJohnson on "an almost fantasy view.. "The bank was to blame forlending Rangers money?"

Findlay Did Johnson adopt the view the taxcase was the responsibility​ of Murray not the club? Horne "He may havewhen he became chairman"

Findlay "There was a man named PaulMurray who came up with a splendid plan, the bank wouldn't want it's moneyback'

Horne agrees he was on the board

Findlay Johnson and Murray "didn'thave a clue...Mr King had his own issues..How was Murray letting these peoplerun his football club?"

Horne "They were big Rangers guys,they seemed to fit the bill"

Findlay says Mr Johnson "probablyillegally" increased the salary of the chief executive Horne "I don'tknow why Alistair did that' They didn't know what they were doing?" Horne"Not strictly fair..had good skillset, not equipped for the financialcrisis"

Findlay "Not equipped for thechallenges they faced," Horne says a lot of companies were at that time

Adds "They wanted the best for theclub, had to face up to the reality of financial constraints they never had toface before"

Adds The Bain pay rise was"Crazy"




Court adjourns, back at 10am tomorrow

[Hibernia&Alba]

For those of us who aren't following the case closely, what's the best outcome for those of us who hate The Rangers? Could it have serious consequences for their current incarnation?

[CropleyWasGod]

For those of us who aren't following the case closely, what's the best outcome for those of us who hate The Rangers? Could it have serious consequences for their current incarnation?



Someone else asked a similar question last week. This is what I posted then.

If you mean the current entity, I'm not sure that there is a preferred outcome.

There is a fanciful scenario whereby, as a result of this particular case, BDO start civil proceedings against some of the individuals involved. If that were to happen, Oldco might be in a position to buy back their assets. But that's for Series 8....we're only on Series 5.

To answer your question, it's a bit like watching Hearts play Rangers. We want them all to kick **** out of each other....which is what is happening...and for them all to get red cards. The result is almost irrelevant

[Hibernia&Alba]

Someone else asked a similar question last week. This is what I posted then.

If you mean the current entity, I'm not sure that there is a preferred outcome.

There is a fanciful scenario whereby, as a result of this particular case, BDO start civil proceedings against some of the individuals involved. If that were to happen, Oldco might be in a position to buy back their assets. But that's for Series 8....we're only on Series 5.

To answer your question, it's a bit like watching Hearts play Rangers. We want them all to kick **** out of each other....which is what is happening...and for them all to get red cards. The result is almost irrelevant


Cheers, CWG; I'd be delighted if the legal fallout could deepen their crisis even further. Any legal decision that could cause them pain is to be welcomed.

[lapsedhibee]

Continues " group and the club are being targeted by the revenue.. speculation..an anti-RFC sentiment amongst HMRC individuals".

Yep, tax collection is a kafflick conspiracy. :agree:

[Moulin Yarns]

Day 21 in the Big Hoose

Proceedings resume with Donald Findlay QCcontinuing his cross-examination of former Murray Group solicitor David Horne

Findlay opens by showing the court a minuteof a conference call, 31 May 2010. Participants, McGill, Horne, Bain andAlistair Johnston

Call was to discuss the "big taxcase"

Continues " group and the club arebeing targeted by the revenue.. speculation..an anti-RFC sentiment amongst HMRCindividuals

Exposure of club in region of £75m to £85m.If case lost "club facing insolvency" (Now we are getting somewhere)

Horne says the legal advice he wasreceiving was that the club would win it's case. Agrees that insolvency was notthe "legacy" Murray would want to leave at Rangers

Email Horne to McGill 3 November 2010"We need to be very careful what we disclose about the tax case"

"Do we want to involve Ellis"

Horne "No-one was going to hideanything, not appropriate to disclose at this time." Adds informationgiven to Whyte team later

"Didn't want to disclose informationuntil we knew deal was taking place" Says Whyte was invited to meeting todiscuss issue in January

Findlay on the small tax case "people weredithering" Horne disagrees, says club didn't have the funds to pay the£2.8m

Horne RFC chairman Alistair Johnston wantedmore spent on players to ensure season ticket sales, but Lloyds would not"support the strategy

Horne agrees as a solicitor he has a dutyto inform a client if what they want to do is illegal

Findlay "When was third partyresources entered into the Share Purchase Agreement" Horne says he can'tremember.

Agrees he has "seen the wording of theagreement"

Horne says he believed Whyte's solicitorGary Withey was "not thinking things through properly" recalls hedidn't know Rangers was a PLC

Horne agrees the Whyte bid for Rangers was"the only show in town" No-one else waiting in the wings

Horne says Alistair Johnston wanted to putthe sale "on hold" until the end of the season but his request wasrejected by Murray. Agrees one reason for not delaying sale was the possibilityWhyte would walk away or refuse to pay liability for small tax case

"The real driving force on the dealwas the bank debt" Lloyds wanted to be repaid.

Agrees Whyte paid the bank debt off.

Findlay notes Gary Withey testified he wasnot provided with information on the tax cases Horne "Maybe heforgot."

[Moulin Yarns]

Part 2

Findlay moves on to the Rangers board. Notes one member Whyte wanted to keep was Donald Muir from the Murray Group.


"If Whyte had anything to hide from Murray would he want his man on the board"

"Would it be normal to invite the fox into the henhouse?'

Horne Whyte might want Muir on the board as he had been "restructuring the cost base" Didn't happen as Muir thought was inappropriate

Horne says he can't recall if he told Whyte about a meeting he had with HMRC 5 days before the deal completed

Adds that Whyte didn't pay the revenue at completion because he wanted to appeal judgment

Findlay: Murray needed to sell Rangers, was going to sell to Whyte whatever happened. Horne "The deal was acceptable to the Murray Group" (Murray not ‘duped’ then)

Findlay asks Horne about due diligence Murray carried out on Whyte. Notes other bidders were checked by PWC

You were prepared to pay PWC to produce glossy brochures, how much did you spend doing due diligence on Whyte Horne "Not very much, nothing"

Horne "Can I tell you why?" Findlay "I'll ask the questions"

Findlay "The only thing you did was take Withey's say so" Horne "We did searches on the internet"

Horne denies he is "passing the buck"

Findlay "You could have investigated everything about Whyte from his first piggy bank to his inside leg measurement" Horne says Whyte was represented by a well known firms of lawyers.

Horne confirms he has heard of David Grier, later of Duff and Phelps

Findlay asks about an email from Mike McGill saying Grier had "let slip" there were other Investors "Did you investigate?" Horne says no Adds issue did not arise again

Lady Stacey asks the witness to wait until the question is over before answering.

Findlay "Why did you do nothing when you were told there were other Investors?" Horne: no further mention of it Whyte should have disclosed

Court takes morning break

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedings resume with Donald Findlay QCcontinuing cross-examination of former Murray Group solicitor David Horne

Findlay Murray's attitude was 'we've donewhat we can' let board investigate Whyte. Horne No

Court shown email from Horne, 28 Feb 2011,"The ISC is able to do it's own DD" Horne We were comfortable withWhyte's advisers

Court shown handwritten note by AlistairJohnston "11/23/10" "NB Octopus £15m an attempt to borrow"

Note of same meeting from Mike McGill"Octopus-meeting discussing with CW re £15m poss working cap"

Findlay suggests notes show Horne knew inNov 2010 Whyte was in contact with Octopus re a £15m loan facility. Horne"That would appear to be the case" Adds thought was just for workingcapital

Findlay asks if Horne asked Whyte aboutOctopus? Horne "We weren't aware" Horne, "You can't read theshare purchase agreement in isolation from other documents Mr Findlay"

Horne, there was a binding undertakingFindlay "Any contract can be broken Mr Horne"

Findlay "Are you seriously suggestingyou signed a contract without a remedy if it was broken?" Horne "Youare a criminal lawyer Mr Findlay" Adds "Not a corporate lawyer"Findlay "Discourtesy doesn't help" Horne "Don't take itpersonally Mr Findlay"

Judge intervenes" Lady Stacey "Wehave to listen to this, discourtesy doesn't help anyone"

Findlay on Ticketus funds "Would itsurprise you if the takeover panel knew" Horne "That would surpriseme."

Findlay shows the witness a "filenote" 30 March 2011, says from a Raymond Phillips at the takeover panel

"Current proposal Craig Whyte woulduse future sales of season tickets to replace Lloyds bank funding"

Findlay A whole range of people knew aboutTicketus deal, obvious Murray could have found out Horne: Not obvious at all,we had no knowledge (and who’s fault is that? )

Findlay "If you want something in acontract you put it in clear terms, you didn't " Horne "badlydrafted" need to read other document

[Moulin Yarns]

Last Stacey asks witness to slow down as she is taking notes


Horne says there is a document about third party funding being for working capital, given bundle but after looking says he "can't find it"

Donald Findlay ends his cross-examination and returns to his seat

The Advocate Depute rises to re-examine Mr Horne

AD shows Horne an email, from Gary Withey April 2011, CC'd to "David Fraser" who, he says, is David Murray

In email Withey confirms Wavetower will be providing £5m of working capital.

Letter in which Whyte says he has a £5m credit facility from a UK financial institution. Horne, that's the letter I was looking for

AD ends, Mr Horne steps down from the witness box. AD says he is "not in a position to lead more evidence today."

Lady Stacey says that as Monday is a Glasgow holiday she will adjourn​ until Tuesday. Court rises

[Moulin Yarns]

Day 22 in the Big Hoose








Breaking: Prosecution rest their case against Craig Whyte

more to follow

[CropleyWasGod]

Day 22 in the Big Hoose








Breaking: Prosecution rest their case against Craig Whyte

more to follow

No Duff and Duffer, or Grier? I am surprised. Perhaps the AD considered that they'd be rich pickings for Findlay.

[Moulin Yarns]

Advocate Depute says he proposesammendments to the indictment to take into account evidence heard so far

Ammendments 1. Ammend dates from charge 1

Futher ammendments delete various parts ofthe charge, ie Worthington Group address, Dorchester hotel

AD proposes the names Andrew Ellis, PhillipBetts and David Grier be removed from the indictment​

Donald Findlay says he has no comment onthe ammendments, judge allows them Defence case begins, Findlay says he haslegal matters to raise

Lady Stacey tells the jury they are discharged for the rest of the day

Well, that was a short day!

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedings are continuing at Glasgow High Court,but as jury not present they cannot be reported until the trial is over

[Iain G]

Proceedings are continuing at Glasgow High Court,but as jury not present they cannot be reported until the trial is over


Big tease!

So what do the actions of the day actually mean?!

[Ozyhibby]

Don't think the prosecution has presented a slam dunk case that Whyte is guilty here. And that's before the defence even starts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't think the prosecution has presented a slam dunk case that Whyte is guilty here. And that's before the defence even starts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the facts are all there. However, DF has blown so much smoke around, it will be difficult for the jury to grasp that. It will be up to the AD to separate all that stuff and concentrate on the facts when he does his summing-up.

[Jack]

I was on a jury and it turned out at this time of the trial the defence lawyer simply said he didn't think his client had a case to answer. The judge agreed and the case was dismissed.

I suspect that's what's happening now.

[southsider]

I was on a jury and it turned out at this time of the trial the defence lawyer simply said he didn't think his client had a case to answer. The judge agreed and the case was dismissed.

I suspect that's what's happening now.
So if Whyte wins does he get the rangers back ?

[HoboHarry]

So if Whyte wins does he get the rangers back ?
Oh God I hope so lol. That really would be popcorn time...........

[Geo_1875]

So if Whyte wins does he get the rangers back ?

No. He'd get rangers back. The rangers belongs to King.

[Haymaker]

I'm confused

[Bostonhibby]

No. He'd get rangers back. The rangers belongs to King.
Will they be able to play each other in the petrofac cup final?

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[surreyhibbie]

I'm confused

Nothing new there then...

[Haymaker]

Nothing new there then...

Oi.

[Billy Whizz]

I'm confused

I think everyone's confused

[HoboHarry]

I think everyone's confused
Except CWG......

[CropleyWasGod]

Except CWG......
Wossup?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

Wossup?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
It's back to work after the holiday weekend and this is s***e. I need some good news about Sevco to laugh at and you are the only one qualified to provide it so get moving.......

[CropleyWasGod]

It's back to work after the holiday weekend and this is s***e. I need some good news about Sevco to laugh at and you are the only one qualified to provide it so get moving.......
Does this help?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0BHQT3Omqtw

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

Except CWG......

It should be SIR CWG - for his service to Scottish Football !. If it hadn't been for him, we wouldn't have been p***ing ourselves laughing at the Hun for the past 4/5 years !

[Ozyhibby]

It should be SIR CWG - for his service to Scottish Football !. If it hadn't been for him, we wouldn't have been p***ing ourselves laughing at the Hun for the past 4/5 years !

I'd have still been laughing, just wouldn't have known why. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I'd have still been laughing, just wouldn't have known why. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm taking great meds for just that condition....

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

James Doleman

Thought I'd wear a tie to court today, whenI arrived a police officer said "you look like an accused"

Parties called into court


19 minutes later Court adjourns

[Ozyhibby]

Findlay not calling any witness's. Can only be because he thinks the prosecution case is weak?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Findlay not calling any witness's. Can only be because he thinks the prosecution case is weak?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beat me to it!!


OMG!!!!









Breaking: Defence tells the court it iscalling no witnesses

Additional joint minute of agreed factsread to jury. Typewritten note from Roland Phillips of the takeover panel givenin evidence true

Defence rests their case.

Findlay suggests court adjourn to give theto prepare closing speeches. Crown Thursday Defence Friday Judge sums up Monday



Court adjourns until 10am tomorrow

[Ozyhibby]

Beat me to it!!


OMG!!!!









Breaking: Defence tells the court it iscalling no witnesses

Additional joint minute of agreed factsread to jury. Typewritten note from Roland Phillips of the takeover panel givenin evidence true

Defence rests their case.

Findlay suggests court adjourn to give theto prepare closing speeches. Crown Thursday Defence Friday Judge sums up Monday



Court adjourns until 10am tomorrow


Means no more revelations though and that's what I was enjoying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Means no more revelations though and that's what I was enjoying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ach, console yourself with the knowledge that Phil's case is still to come. When is that?

[Billy Whizz]

Ach, console yourself with the knowledge that Phil's case is still to come. When is that?

Sorry who's Phil

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry who's Phil

I always get that wrong :greengrin

CHARLES Green, not Philip

So many shysters these days.... :rolleyes:

[Ozyhibby]

Ach, console yourself with the knowledge that Phil's case is still to come. When is that?

I used to have a handy Sevco court fixture list but I can't find it on my phone. [emoji26]
Hopefully if acquitted Whyte feels he has the freedom to settle some scores.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Pointer]

I always get that wrong :greengrin

CHARLES Green, not Philip

So many shysters these days.... :rolleyes:

Ha, ha - understandable slip of the tongue.

[Billy Whizz]

I always get that wrong :greengrin

CHARLES Green, not Philip

So many shysters these days.... :rolleyes:

Thought the trial was to last 11/12 weeks. We can only be on week 5 or so now

[Moulin Yarns]

Thought the trial was to last 11/12 weeks. We can only be on week 5 or so now

Yeah. Day 23 I think.

[lapsedhibee]

Findlay not calling any witness's. Can only be because he thinks the prosecution case is weak?


Or The The Loyals have found out (probably from Lee Wallace) where he lives, and threatened to tan his windows if he proceeds.

[Deansy]

Don't think the prosecution has presented a slam dunk case that Whyte is guilty here. And that's before the defence even starts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm actually starting to believe that Whyte will be found not guilty - hope so, love the wee-guy !

[CropleyWasGod]

Thought the trial was to last 11/12 weeks. We can only be on week 5 or so now
We can never actually know how much time a trial will take. That.length of time would have been set aside, but it doesn't mean that it has to take that long. For one thing, a longer defence case would have been factored in.

It remains to be seen how long the summings-up will take.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

I'm actually starting to believe that Whyte will be found not guilty - hope so, love the wee-guy !
Had I been Whyte I would have been instructing my counsel to stick the dagger in and twist it - does the fact that they are calling no-one mean a deal has been struck? What is the advantage to DF to bring this to an early end?

[Hibs07p]

My personal feelings is that DF knows where all the bodies are, he's exposed a few skeletons along the way, with the promise of digging deeper if need be. The establishment are ****ting themselves that he's about to expose the corruption of the establishment in it's full glory, and are colluding to ensure a face saving outcome. Just my take on it.

GGTTH

[CropleyWasGod]

Had I been Whyte I would have been instructing my counsel to stick the dagger in and twist it - does the fact that they are calling no-one mean a deal has been struck? What is the advantage to DF to bring this to an early end?
Sometimes the best defence is to say nothing.

Remember , it's up to the Crown to prove guilt, rather than DF's job to prove innocence. As Ozy said earlier, it looks as if DF thinks that the Crown case isn't strong enough to establish guilt.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[majorhibs]

My personal feelings is that DF knows where all the bodies are, he's exposed a few skeletons along the way, with the promise of digging deeper if need be. The establishment are ****ting themselves that he's about to expose the corruption of the establishment in it's full glory, and are colluding to ensure a face saving outcome. Just my take on it.

GGTTH

I think your exactly right. DF could blow them away. But then he would no longer be acceptable to "ra peepul" so he's backed off big style, job done for client, reputation not destroyed with orc's, our politicians all lie & back stab to get ahead, why be surprised at lawyers displaying the same noses in troughs me me me nonsense?

[Moulin Yarns]

Prosecution summing up


Just a few points worth noting.

The AdvocateDepute begins by quoting David Murray on Whyte's deal with Ticketus :"Itwas selling the future."

AD says part ofthe indictment relating to Duff and Phelps has been removed as David Grier wasnot called to give evidence

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

AD to jury"I ask you to convict Mr Whyte on both charges"

AD definesfraud: "A false pretence, dishonestly made, in order to obtain somepractical result."

AD "MrWhyte misrepresented to Murray he had funds available on 6 May..a dishonestrepresentation"

AD notes neitherJerome Pension money and Merchant Capital funds was not available to Whyte asno agreement to release is

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

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

AD case is notabout events after Whyte bought the club: "The allegation he brought theclub to its knees is nothing to do with this case

AD "This wasnot simply the payment of a pound" (I thought that was the agreed ‘price’ the rest waspaying off debt by CW on acquisition?)

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

AD says juryonly need to address two questions 1. Was the crime committed? 2 Was theaccussed responsible?

AD "Thistrial is not a public inquiry into the corporate finances of Rangers FootballClub."

AD says DavidMurray's legacy was important to him "he wanted the club to go forwardwith new Investment." (After he sold it howcould he say what happened?)

Reminds the juryMurray gave evidence he would not have done the deal if he had known aboutTicketus being involved

AD "WhatWhyte did could have been legitimate" if he did the Ticketus deal after heowned the club. (Pre-contract agreement?)

AD "MrWhyte took active steps to ensure Ticketus deal was not revealed" anyMurray investigation would not have discovered it.

AD :The bankwanted out of football generally and Rangers in particular..no suggestionthough that club was going bust."

AD notes Whyteis not charged with failing to invest in Rangers after the takeover.


Court adjournsfor a morning break

[Iain G]

Prosecution summing up

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


Is he saying he even borrow the £1 coin :greengrin

Sounds like the Crown case is on a shoogly peg to me given that their summing up doesn't quite ring true based on what we have heard.

Has DF has done enough to muddy the waters around the whole sale and who knew what / what their motivations were to get to a Not Proven verdict?

[Ozyhibby]

Can't see what Whyte has done wrong to be honest. He paid the pound. He then borrowed money from ticketus to pay of Loydds. All that happened was a change of loan provider.
It appears from what we have heard so far that there was nothing in any of the contracts preventing him from doing that.
I just can't see a case against him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Can't see what Whyte has done wrong to be honest. He paid the pound. He then borrowed money from ticketus to pay of Loydds. All that happened was a change of loan provider.
It appears from what we have heard so far that there was nothing in any of the contracts preventing him from doing that.
I just can't see a case against him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the key for me:-

AD "MrWhyte misrepresented to Murray he had funds available on 6 May..a dishonestrepresentation"

AD notes neitherJerome Pension money and Merchant Capital funds was not available to Whyte asno agreement to release is

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

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

CW didn't have the rights to the Ticketus money. That much has been proven by the civil case, albeit that is probably inadmissible here. As a result, RFC got £24m? less than they had expected under the contract.

[brog]

Can't see what Whyte has done wrong to be honest. He paid the pound. He then borrowed money from ticketus to pay of Loydds. All that happened was a change of loan provider.
It appears from what we have heard so far that there was nothing in any of the contracts preventing him from doing that.
I just can't see a case against him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It looks like it's all a question of timing. If Whyte had bought the club with some 3rd party source of funds then subsequently used the Ticketus money to pay back that 3rd party (similar to Glazers/Man U ) then result would be same but all would be tickety boo, sorry!! However the charge is he didn't have funds to buy Sevco but pretended he did then used Ticketus money (when he was not yet the owner) to fund the purchase. That's where the alleged fraud happens. It also depends very much on whether SDM's testimony that he knew nothing guv, is believed. Personally I think wee Craigie will get a Not Proven at worst, remember DF hasn't summed up yet.

[brog]

This is the key for me:-

AD "MrWhyte misrepresented to Murray he had funds available on 6 May..a dishonestrepresentation"

AD notes neitherJerome Pension money and Merchant Capital funds was not available to Whyte asno agreement to release is

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

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

CW didn't have the rights to the Ticketus money. That much has been proven by the civil case, albeit that is probably inadmissible here. As a result, RFC got £24m? less than they had expected under the contract.

Snap! :wink:

[Springbank]

This is the key for me:-

AD "MrWhyte misrepresented to Murray he had funds available on 6 May..a dishonestrepresentation"

AD notes neitherJerome Pension money and Merchant Capital funds was not available to Whyte asno agreement to release is

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

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

CW didn't have the rights to the Ticketus money. That much has been proven by the civil case, albeit that is probably inadmissible here. As a result, RFC got £24m? less than they had expected under the contract.

Will be interesting to see the outcome as I think Donald Findlay did a decent job of outlining that David Murray did no due diligence (not even £20 worth of background checks), and that Ticketus were not introduced by Craig Whyte, but were already a well-established source of funding as far as Rangers were concerned.

Does that change things...let's see what the outcome is

[Iain G]

This is the key for me:-

AD "MrWhyte misrepresented to Murray he had funds available on 6 May..a dishonestrepresentation"

AD notes neitherJerome Pension money and Merchant Capital funds was not available to Whyte asno agreement to release is

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

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

CW didn't have the rights to the Ticketus money. That much has been proven by the civil case, albeit that is probably inadmissible here. As a result, RFC got £24m? less than they had expected under the contract.

But DF has painted a nice picture that Murray and Murray Group were desperate to offload the football club to the next sucker who came along...

[JeMeSouviens]

This is the key for me:-

AD "MrWhyte misrepresented to Murray he had funds available on 6 May..a dishonestrepresentation"

AD notes neitherJerome Pension money and Merchant Capital funds was not available to Whyte asno agreement to release is

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

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

CW didn't have the rights to the Ticketus money. That much has been proven by the civil case, albeit that is probably inadmissible here. As a result, RFC got £24m? less than they had expected under the contract.

Think this is where DF will focus. Murray knew more than he says, was desperate to get out of Hunsville, get the bank off his back and get his metals business back and therefore turned a blind eye - will be his line.

[Ozyhibby]

It looks like it's all a question of timing. If Whyte had bought the club with some 3rd party source of funds then subsequently used the Ticketus money to pay back that 3rd party (similar to Glazers/Man U ) then result would be same but all would be tickety boo, sorry!! However the charge is he didn't have funds to buy Sevco but pretended he did then used Ticketus money (when he was not yet the owner) to fund the purchase. That's where the alleged fraud happens. It also depends very much on whether SDM's testimony that he knew nothing guv, is believed. Personally I think wee Craigie will get a Not Proven at worst, remember DF hasn't summed up yet.

Wasn't the purchase only £1? He used the ticketus money to repay lloyds? None of the contracts stipulate that he can't do this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Wasn't the purchase only £1? He used the ticketus money to repay lloyds? None of the contracts stipulate that he can't do this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the Share Purchase Agreement said he had to pay off the bank with his own funds.

[jacomo]

Wasn't the purchase only £1? He used the ticketus money to repay lloyds? None of the contracts stipulate that he can't do this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My understanding is that you can't borrow against the assets of a company to buy that company.

This is aside from CW breaking any specific agreement to buy Rangers.

[CropleyWasGod]

Wasn't the purchase only £1? He used the ticketus money to repay lloyds? None of the contracts stipulate that he can't do this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The purchase of the shares was £1, but that was subject to a £48m injection on the part of CW. If he then only injected half of that, the contract hasn't been fulfilled.

[Moulin Yarns]

Proceedingsresume, the Advocate Depute rises to continue his closing address to the jury.

Jury shown aletter from lawyer, Gary Withey to Murray, says cost of "ProjectCharlotte" would be £33m adds Liberty Capital has the funds.

AD quotes MikeMcGill of Murray Group, "this was not a fire sale."

AD asks the juryto look at the Share Purchase Agreement, remarks "You probably know thisin your sleep"

AD says Whytehad no right to sell Rangers season tickets before he owned the club (Did he though? Was itnot more of an IOU? You get the season tickets if I’m successful)

AD "In nopossible view" could Whyte's commitments in the Share Purchase Agreementbe truthful.

AD notes he andGary Withey had an "extraordinary exchange" over the nature of aclient account, notes it was Whyte who instructed Withey

"Mr Whytewas very much aware of what was taking place"

AD on MerchantCapital funds "In no way was this Mr Whyte's to use, it was somebody elsesmoney." (A bit like borrowing from the bank? Gettinga mortgage?)

AD Says Whytehad no authority over the Jerome pension fund money. Was held by CollyerBristow but could only be released by them

Adds That GaryWithey had accepted he "could not have written a cheque" for themoney on the purchase date

AD notes it hasbeen suggested the Ticketus agreement was the "talk of the town" butthere is no evidence Murray knew (Cloth Ears!)

"Murraywould have walked away if they had known"

AD says thateven if Murray did not disclose everything during takeover "That has nobearing on the false representations Mr Whyte made." (It is OK for the seller to hide facts but not thebuyer!!? Aye right!)

AD "Theevidence about the historical governance of Rangers has no relevance"

AD "This isa criminal trial with two questions, was the crime committed and was theaccussed responsible, not a breach of contract case"

AD "It'sbeen suggested David Murray might have known about the Ticketus agreement, theevidence is clear, he did not."

AD notes Whyteasked for changes to a cash flow doc to remove references to Ticketus"This is part of the deceit, could be nothing else" (was it not Ticketus that wanted their name removed?)

[Moulin Yarns]

AD says discussion of electronic transfers and cheques is irrelevant as the "money was not there."


AD shows jury letter from David Horne to Whyte when press revealed the Ticketus deal. Asks for information on details of transaction

"It's plain there was a dishonest representation on the source of funds"

AD moves on to charge 2, jury given copies of relevant section of the Companies Act.

Adds "This is the sort of thing that would strike fear into the hearts of law students"

AD says essential point of section is that it is illegal to acquire a company using it's own resources.

AD "It wasn't about just paying a pound" bank debt had to be paid bank Says Ticketus lent money to Rangers who then lent it to Whyte who then paid the bank. "Financial assistance"

AD now reading out relevant section of companies act.

"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

AD suggests "Mr Whyte knew what he was doing" Says case is simple "Craig Whyte deceived Murray, used assets of club to buy it" Adds "false and dishonest representation"

AD "This has been a long case, but not as long as it could have been. I now sit down and don't say any more"

AD closes by thanking the jury for their attention

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