Not before CW took over, though, which is what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Printable View
Not before CW took over, though, which is what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Oh. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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' !!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
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 🙄Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Probably easier to list those who shouldn't be in the dock :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Imagine even contemplating that they would pay off their debt using their own funds / assets rather than someone else's!Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Sure they are all proper Rangers-minded people though so that's all ok :greengrin
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
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
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
Probably the plan all along. Another carpet lifting exercise no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernianinc
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
It's beginning to look that way. I wonder how many millions this has cost/ wasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
fascinating stuff though.
Not as big a waste as tracking down supporters that were on the pitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
I did laugh at that but only because John Wilson got a not proven after admitting assaulting Neil Lennon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall
DF will have a spring in his step for the next instalment of the CW trial.
Might just swing things for his client!!
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
Shakeshaft ! brilliant name for character in this farce. :greengrin
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
He must've had a difficult childhood with that name :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
He's lucky he had a childhood at all given that his father is Mr. Shakeshaft !
Could have been so much different, imaging a letter change from h to n.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
Shakesnaft?Quote:
Originally Posted by rodhibs55
:faf::faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieFitbaTeam
That's his porn name.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by rodhibs55
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
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:
When is the trial due to end?
Think 11 weeks have been set aside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
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.......:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm sure I knew his sister a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieFitbaTeam
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
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
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
Is that from something said on twitter or was it mentioned in court?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Think GF said it in one of his posts last week, which summarised Doleman's Tweets, which reported the Court activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesie
So.... both :greengrin
Donald Findlay would be a nunQuote:
Originally Posted by Pedantic_Hibee
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
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? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
You still believe that the owners (Murray et al) didn't know what he was doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I've said from the start (circa 1897) that SDM had to have known.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
I'm sitting on the fence, though, as to whether that can be proved (either way) in Court. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Will the various taped conversations be admissible as evidence ? :cb
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.
Yeah. AD said he would finish his witnesses this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Wait for the next instalment, when DF gets going :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
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
Any significance on John Gillagan stepping down from the Rangers Board?
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 :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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/2...ms-titanic.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
Are you running out of popcorn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
You should have bought the GIANT size :-)
I'm just surprised David Murray permitted this court-case to be heard !
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
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
Nail on head IainQuote:
Originally Posted by Iain G
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
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' ??.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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' ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
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! 😁Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
Addicts can get a fix with JamesDoleman.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
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.
Going to miss this morning again, hunting bats!!
David Horne, Murray Group on just now.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman
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
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
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’ )
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
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
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"
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
" 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
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.
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
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
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:
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."
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
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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!
Proceedings are continuing at Glasgow High Court,but as jury not present they cannot be reported until the trial is over