Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Or The The Loyals have found out (probably from Lee Wallace) where he lives, and threatened to tan his windows if he proceeds.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Or The The Loyals have found out (probably from Lee Wallace) where he lives, and threatened to tan his windows if he proceeds.
I'm actually starting to believe that Whyte will be found not guilty - hope so, love the wee-guy !Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
It remains to be seen how long the summings-up will take.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
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
Sometimes the best defence is to say nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs07p
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
Is he saying he even borrow the £1 coin :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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?
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:-Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Snap! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Does that change things...let's see what the outcome is
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the Share Purchase Agreement said he had to pay off the bank with his own funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
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?)
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
Seems the case is that Murray did not know about ticketus. If this is it then why did Murray not put that there should be no 3rd party funding in the contract? It would have been easy to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SDM's behaviour in this saga reminds me of Ronald Reagan at the time of Irangate. The Washington Post headline was "Guilty But Asleep". Most apt for SDM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Didn't Findlay get a Huns RIP witness to admit that there was nothing in the contract to hold Whyte to the promised injection of funding? And how much of the £48m was for the big tax case, rather than the squad or stadium repairs?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Why would Huns RIP lend the money to Whyte to repay Lloyds, when it was Huns RIP that owed Lloyds the money? All Whyte did was refinance the club's borrowing that Murray had run up using the assets of the company which he now controlled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Either I'm missing the bloody obvious or Findlay is going to have fun tomorrow.
You are.Whyte was not the owner of Rangers when he used Rangers' assets to raise money.He then as you say refinanced by running up a debt in Rangers name which was not the deal.
I wish posters wouldn't refer to old Huns as Rangers RIP, when it should obviously be Rangers RIH (rot in hell) :greengrin
If I buy a house I arrange the funds before I take ownership with the house as security. Is that not the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
What money did he raise?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
Whyte had an agreement in place with Ticketus to refinance the Lloyds debt. Is that any different to having an agreement in place with another bank, which would have required a security over Ibrox? This wasn't fresh money that he could then pay out to himself.
And was the Ticketus money a loan? I think I read earlier in the court proceedings that they had actually purchased the tickets at a discount, although I could be mistaken.
Remember that Ticketus were a creditor in the RFC liquidation. That was for a loan that CW took out before he was the owner. Ticketus believed that he was acting on behalf of RFC, which is why they paid over the money......and why they subsequently successfully sued him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
It definitely was a loan, BTW. An advance secured on ST sales, which they "bought" at a discounted rate and recouped at the full rate.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk