Maybe there's a reason he is an Ex solicitor :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Printable View
Maybe there's a reason he is an Ex solicitor :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Whatever the reason they are twitchy around the high court today, during my lunchtime stroll there were the usual 2 coppers standing outside and there was a paparazzi car parked opposite, there were 3 cop cars milling around and a bike cop parked on the corner of Clyde St facing the wrong way, the polis helicopter has being doing circuits in the area for no apparent reason, as well as the usual mounties going for a stroll around Glasgow Green.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
I think I almost bumped into CW walking back to court, but he was on his own so I assume it wasnt him, as he wouldnt be out walking the streets of the weej on his own for fear of a lynching.
Can I ask a stupid question, what is this costing the tax payer, whyte probably on legal aid?
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
nah can't be on legal aid - I heard that his wealth is off the radarQuote:
Originally Posted by DarlingtonHibee
I thought it was odd when you noted "The Advocate Depute is questioning formerlawyer Gary Withey"Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
I assumed what was meant was the former lawyer of Craig Whyte.
According to this, he is still a solicitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/soli...152807.article
He resigned from Collyer Bristow, though, who ended up paying £24m to the Oldco's liquidators.
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.
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….
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.
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 beQuote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
"Was there a paper shredder in the room"?
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"
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."
Isn't this financial assistance? I though that Whyte was charged with this, but there seems very little discussion about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
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.
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 ?
But in their case they didn't pretend to the lenders that they were Man U., which is what CW is accused of doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
You are not allowed the use a company's own assets to fund your takeover bid though. Effectively, this is what Whyte did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
The purchase price was £1.
The Ticketus deal just moved the existing company debt from the bank to another lender.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by brog
There's a big difference between what the Glazers did and what CW is charged with .Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
£17.7mQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
The same amount he duped Ticketus into giving him to pay the bank off.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Ta. It's lucky that he can easily afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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 😂😂😂Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Just to have a break from the trial
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/topi...ponsor/?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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzywuzzy
Totally embarrassing and pish patter.
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
[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,
I got as far as 'I don't know any chinky jokes and I deplore casual racism'... and gave upQuote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzywuzzy
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
[QUOTE=brog;5044255]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:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
Def did not pay the small tax case. Remains unpaid to this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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
This bit?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
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
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.
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
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
Your bit in bold.... DF should have asked WHEN that happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Yep! thought that was relevant. He might come back to it after lunch, you never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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.
This is compulsive, coming home from work to read the next instalment.
Many thanks GF.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Is It On....
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
There are many arms to Octopus.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And they have access to a few squid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
You win.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Kraken up at that one.
:greengrin
As funny as a kick in the tentacles. 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by oldbutdim
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by majorhibs
Not sure about this bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
He appointed his own pals in the insolvency, and still didn't get away with the assets.
Was that underestimating the power of HMRC?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Perhaps, TBF. Although those sums could have (should have) been done long before the event itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
a wee taster for today
https://t.co/XW08vRh7Ed
:greengrin
Did SDM hire that truck? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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
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.
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!!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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, methinksQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Edit, not much digging
https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com...ssive-secrecy/Quote:
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.
Okay, so he was a director. Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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 deeperQuote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.m
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Bryan's evidence yesterday post#37210Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
It's not a new thing, then, just clarification of how the scam actually went down.
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. "
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
I'm sure he 'has no recollections of that event', or some other not-quite-a-denial
Pretty sure that Betts wasn't a director of RFC when the deal was being worked on.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
BUT....the Donald will clarify, I'm sure 🙄
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Seems clear from this that he was an RFC director at the time? He signed the loan agreement on behalf of RFC?Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
So Rangers were going to run the business for three seasons on approx half their normal gate takings.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
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.
If the Crown dropped charges for some of these witnesses to give evidence they didn't write their scripts very well.
Betts was appointed to the RFC board by Whyte.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I guess that's after the coin was flipped over the table.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Liths getting a lead from Campbell Ogilvie when he was at the PBS, perhaps ?