Thanks for all the updates :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
was there anymore before close of play.
Printable View
Thanks for all the updates :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
was there anymore before close of play.
McGill was reading all 27 pages of the Share Purchase Agreement. This may take some time. 😁Quote:
Originally Posted by seanshow
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Cheers CWG, I should have made rustling of paper sounds :greengrin. The highlight was when the words couldn't be read because of hole punches and McGill missed a paragraph!!
Seen this on twitter this morning. Not sure if it's relevance to this thread but thought I'd post it anyway.
http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/artic...scottish-press
Don't expect much to happen this morning
Proceedings resume with Crown witness Michael McGill continuing to read out the Share Purchase Agreement between Craig Whyte and Murray
I'll keep an eye on it, but will be watching my local election results as well
Probably of zero impact as most of them can't read so the post itself will be a problem, never mind not knowing what to do with a newspaper which they previously thought was a dinner plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by vince1973
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
Not going back over this mornings proceedings, but this confirms something
Findlay notes Lithuanian bank whose bid was rejected for links to organised crime went on to buy Portsmouth.
I minimal legal training, but what is the point in asking a witness to read out a 27 page document. If I were on the jury, I would lose interest and probably, the will to live, after the second paragraph on the first page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Or is that the point?
Talk about a skewed warped view of the world, feel like I may get in trouble at work for clicking on that link, I feel dirty now!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
All they do is deflect from the inherent issues that were at the very heart of their now dead football club and its zombie clone that is masquerading in its place.
McGill says they explored idea of a "fans buyout" but other Directors rejected it.Says met Dave King in London and were expecting an offer
Subsequently learned he was "unable to progress the transaction..assets in the UK were frozen"
Findlay says Paul Murray bid involved bank not getting their money back and Murray group to pay for big tax caseMcGill "Wasn't workable"
Findlay asks about £1.7m health and safety requirements for stadium. McGill says found out in 2010Findlay suggests work not being done
Findlay "Who was responsible for that?"McGill "The board"Findlay "That was you" :greengrin
Findlay says bill for small tax case was originally £2.3m, as no payments made went up to £2.8m"All you were doing was wasting money?"
McGill says they were negotiating with the bankFindlay "the bank wouldn't pay that, we've heard evidence to that"
Findlay "Let me put this bluntly, as the jury now know is my way" you just left it hoping someone else would pay." :greengrin
McGill agrees neither the group or the club could have paid. Findlay "that would be the end of Rangers?" :greengrin
AND HERE IT IS
McGill "If they came out if insolvency that would have preserved the old club."Findlay "Let's not go into all that" :wink:
I don't really understand the statement in bold? What is that meant to mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
I didn't think there would be anything juicy in it, but there were one or two interesting bits about transfer of liability and the like. The Jury all got a copy so they could follow what was being said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Topographic Hibby
Remember, they are STILL in insolvency. Cue CWG :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
McGill says he didn't know about the small tax caseFindlay "The financial director didn't know about a tax avoidance scheme?"
McGill says he was told by a QC the case could be fought, until side letters discovered when he said "you have to pay"
Court being shown email from McGill Nov 2010. Asks for info on discount option scheme 1 who introduced it? 2 who administered it?
McGill says scheme was introduced by a firm of accountants, was only ever used in RFC from 1999
Findlay "Who was chairman of Rangers in 1999!"McGill "I believe that was Sir David Murray" :top marks
Exactly - that would take years no? CWG - get oot yer bed ya lazy git and explain to the masses :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Old Club + insolvent = DEID. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Squirm time :greengrin
McGill, "I don't believe David Murray introduced the scheme"Findlay "Loyalty is commendable but the chairman is responsible"
McGill says he found out about Employee Benefit Trusts (EBT) when he joined the company. Was implemented across Murray Group. ("wisnae me")
Findlay asks who was chairman of the board when EBT's introduced at Rangers?McGill "That would be Mr Murray"Findlay "It's the same people
McGill, "If the big tax case was lost the club would have entered insolvency, that's my view" Findlay "what price the legacy then?"
McGill says Murray was clear a buyer would have to invest in team, pay bank £18m and repair the stadiumNot yet aware of small tax case
Findlay suggests in business negotiations people will keep cards close to chest and "lie to each other, but you call it negotiation"
Findlay suggests "if you were buying a company you wouldn't disclose your business plan", the other person might take it
Findlay "Why does it matter where the money comes from, as long as it's legal?_
McGill agrees only "very limited due diligence on Mr Whyte"Findlay "who did you hire to do it"McGill "We didn't"
McGill says Whyte's name was in the public domain and "the press" would be investigating him.
Findlay "Can you answer the question, that's the way it works normally"Suggests there are firms who investigate people, "did you hire one?
McGill, "No"
Findlay asks "what if I just told you" money was mine. McGill That would be your own resourcesFindlay "can we stop going off on tangents"
Findlay reminds McGill he has a law degree yet l "jumped to his own conclusions"McGill, "That's your view"Findlay "My view doesnt matter"
Findlay suggests "once I own the asset I can do what I like"?McGill "Subject to company law, yes"
Findlay "Were you at the Dorchester when it all went wrong"McGill, "I don't understand the question"
Findlay explains he is discussing abortive sale of Rangers, "The fiasco"McGill Denies fiasco, but was aware of meeting
McGill Says documents were not ready to signFindlay "That's not the impression Murray gave"
Findlay "If you are talking to a property developer worth asking if he is planning to put flats on Ibrox, did you ask him?"McGill No
Findlay, if you were selling something so precious to so many people you would look in every corner
McGill "We had no reason to doubt what he (Whyte) was telling us
Court adjourns for the day. No sitting on Monday as judge has another committment.Case to resume Tuesday at 10ak
Remember that this is the prosecution case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Topographic Hibby
They're trying to demonstrate that there is nothing in the SPA that would justify CW doing what he (allegedly) did.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
On Mcgills comment about the insolvency.....
I read it as his expressing an opinion on the old club / new club debate. Nothing more.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
(on they gut making monkey-gestures and they gut who tried to attack Brown)Quote:
Originally Posted by vince1973
'While there is much anger in the Rangers community at those who have let us down'
Hmm, doesn't read that way in Hun-media -
'These ****s doing what they want at Ibrox has caused this, **** *******s, and not a Rangers player challenging it. ****ing disgraceful
- and that's one of the milder posts on that that (now well-known on .net) particular thread !
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topi...umaila/?page=1
Needless to say the question of religion is immediate. And these ****ers wonder why they are hated
Whether you consider the current incumbents of Ibrox to be the same or a new club, one thing we surely can agree on is that the club and its followers are worthy successors to the hideous Rangers FC.
Two people arrested for obscene racism, no mention of the obscene religious bigotry from the majority
Back in court today.
Findlay cross examining McGill.
I'll post what I think relevant when they break.
McGill, HMRC produced "letters" in March which made appeal over small tax case impossible
#WhyteTrial
Stewart Regan has now been shown to have lied about the wee tax case.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so far this morning
Continues
Jury come into court, case resumes withcontinuation of cross-examination of former Murray group director Mike McGill
McGill confirms this is re "Thesmall tax case" Total due £2,238,559.91p (including interest)
Letter also points out interest isaccruing, suggests making a payment to stop interest growing
Findlay asks if Whyte bid was underway atthis date? McGill It was underway, Whyte not informed until later asappeal underway
McGill, HMRC produced "letters" inMarch which made appeal over small tax case impossible
Findlay on the tax scheme: "The way itwas being run was incompetent?" McGill: "Yes"
McGill says Whyte was not told aboutpotential tax liability until "later" in the process
Findlay asks about the "dataroom" set up for Whyte's takeover McGill says aware "sensitiveinformation" not put in,player and exec wages
Findlay notes correspondence with HMRC wasvia the Murray' group not Rangers. McGill says was being managed "onbehalf of Rangers"
Findlay notes that a buyer would be unlikelyto ask "Out of interest do you have any unpaid liabilities with HMRC youhaven't mentioned"
Findlay suggests Whyte was not giveninformation on big tax case as "commercially sensitive" for MurrayGroup McGill, "I couldn't comment"
Findlay asks if Whyte and Murray had any"informal chats" about the takeover McGill: "That may havehappened"
McGill now being shown email from MrHorn of Murray Group from 5 April 2011, a month before sale to Whyte
Email says "I dont believe thepurchaser has the resources" McGill, there was discussion aboutring-fencing season ticket money
Continues "We have no idea if thepurchaser has the funds to run the club after purchase" McGill saysthere was a "solicitors undertaking"
Findlay "Was that it"?McGill "Yes"
Findlay turns to the Share PurchaseAgreement between Murray and Whyte
McGill agrees is important SharePurchase Agreement is clear to all parties. Attached "solicitorsundertaking" should also be "unequivocal"
Findlay "Did you read this before yousigned it?" McGill "Yes
Findlay notes Share Purchase Agreement saysabout funds: "It has immediately available from its own, and third partysources"
Findlay "The purchaser is saying notall the money is coming from him and you signed?" McGill: "Yes"
Findlay "You would expect the lawyersto get this right" as is sale of a "major Scottish institution"
Continues "Was anyone seriouslyexpecting Mr Whyte to turn up with £20m in a suitcase"
McGill agrees that in terms of the SharePurchase Agreement the word "third party" could be singular or plural
Findlay to McGill "Why on earth wouldyou sign a Share Purchase Agreement you could drive a coach and horsesthrough?"
McGill Says he knew about third partyfunding for working capital.
Findlay asks does the agreement limit thirdparty funding to working capital McGill, 'No it does not"
Findlay on £20m investment "What'spoint of putting that in..is just PR window dressing" McGill "you maycall it that Findlay "I just did"
Findlay on £5m investment "Were onearth was £5m going to get them in the Champions League.."Wouldn't havegot them Messi's left foot"
McGill "Was more than Murray groupcould put in" Findlay "Exactly" McGill "We found nobenefactor"
If Murray Group had carried on runningRangers would not have been investment McGill says
Findlay returns to small tax case, McGillsays Share Purchase Agreement still gave Whyte right to appeal it. Findlay"no obligation"
Findlay notes Share Purchase Agreementguarantees £5m to be available to Rangers for players "Who was the ownerof Rangers?" Mr Whyte
Findlay a "Pointless undertaking"as Whyte as owner could just not ask for the money McGill "I hear what youare saying"
McGill Taking over the club and notinvesting would be "odd" Findlay "We are not interested in whatyou think is odd.."
Continues "What amateur drew this up?'
Findlay "Did none of your advisors notnotice this and say 'dont sign this" McGill "no"
McGill agrees there was a major"health and safety issue" at Ibrox. Cites problem with Public Addresssystem, £1.7m within 12 months
Findlay notes "your telling the newowner he can shut half the stadium and you can't do anything about it"
Findlay: "The obligations arequalified McGill "They are qualified by time" Findlay "Aroundhere we call that a qualification"
Findlay:"If there is a health andsafety issue that is something you have to address" yet agreement gives 12months for money to be released
McGill "we sold the club on the basishe had the £5m, he still had flexibility when to put funds in."
Court takes it's morning break
To quote Rabbie, what a parcel of rogues!Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
And we are back up and running, can openerat the ready
Findlay opens by asking McGill aboutTicketus. He confirms he was aware of them and that Rangers had an arrangementwith the company
McGill says he spoke to someone at Ticketusin 2010, Martin Bain was person who dealt with them generally
McGill says he did write an email saying"The Whyte team would be mad not too look at Ticketus" adds onlyreferring to "working capital"
Document "Agreement in principle"Ticketus 28 Oct 2010 £20m to be borrowed to fund takeover Rangers,3 yearsseason ticket
Deal requires 45% of club's"inventory" of season tickets.
Findlay "There are Rangers supporterson every corner of the globe, albiet globes don't have corners"
Findlay says Ticketus employees would knowabout deal and purpose of it.
McGill shown handwritten note dated11/23/2010 (American style) By then Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnson re"Mike McGill conversation"
Continues re CW "concerns history ofwalking away from debt.RFC can't be pawn..nb Octopus £ maybe £15m attempt toborrow" (we don’t do ‘walking away ! J )
McGill now being shown email, 6 April 2011,from him to lawyer David Horn and David Murray. "Should be £30m in accounttomorrow"
McGill says doesn't recall email. Continues"Revenue will look at affordability" re big tax case
"Opinion required for CW's otherinvestors" McGill "I do not recall conversation but don't denyit"
Findlsy "you knew on 6 April Whyte hadother investors," asks if he investigated further? McGill "I don'trecall why I didn't do that"
Next document a handwritten note by DavidHorn, a Murray group lawyer, from Nov 2010
Note says in part "Octopus meetingdiscussing with CW re £15m possible facility"
McGill suggests may just be for"working capital" Findlay "What discussions had you had aboutworking capital at that time"? Doesn't recall
Findlay notes Johnson memo also mentions£15m "Just a coincidence?"
Findlay "You Sir David and others hada clear indication Whyte had other investors" McGill, "Yes"Findlay Ever aware of Octopus loan No
Findlay on £15m Johnson knew, Horn knewMcGill agrees Murray group knew via Horn Findlay "Why didn't you put it inShare Purchase Agreement?
Findlay "Did you ever ask the Whyteteam?" McGill "We didn't seek that clarification" Findlay didyou ever ask Octopus? "no we did not"