Printable View
Oh I think you are quite wrong there. The way this whole mess is coming unglued makes me wonder if they will even last the season. There must be at the very least half a dozen squeaky bums out there lol. Not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that some people are staring jail time in the face. Can you imagine being involved in the downfall of Rangers and then having to spend time in Shotts or Barlinnie? Lol and lol again......Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I'd love to be proved wrong, but I fear that Sevco are sufficiently distant from this event to avoid fallout. If Whyte releases tapes of discussions with Green from before May, well that would be something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Aside from D&P's now proven conflict of interest, if Whyte can prove he did have a floating charge it could unwind the whole deal or at the very least mean litigation and uncertainty for a hamstrung Sevco. So let the zombie horde buy the shares. Fools and their money (giro's). :thumbsup:
Wouldn't bet against Whyte having Green tapes and just ensuring he gets his money from a private arrangement by taking someone else down.
Whyte did have a floating charge. That is not in dispute; it was registered at Companies House.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
However, for a charge to have any value, there has to be a debt. Whyte was not owed anything by the Oldco. Therefore the charge is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
My understanding was in the event of insolvency the assets would be sold and he as the secure creditor would be paid first. D&P ignored his claim.
I suspect BDO would unwind this dodgy deal on day one if we were dealing with any regular public company with similar shenanigans, but we have to factor in the Orc violence and intimidation, plus the compliant/complicit Glasgow media. We'll see. Popcorn is back on the stove!
Im not legally trained but if this is true and Grier is a partner in Duff and Phelps then surelly they must be found guilty of some form of criminal negligence/charges
And if so then all decisions including selling Rangers to the yorkshireman are null and void?
Administration again:greengrin
CWG's point is that Whyte wasn't a creditor, so he had no claim. He may or may not have held a floating charge or security, but if he's not due any money then the security is worthless. (At least, I think that's what he's saying).Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ****pile
I don't see how they can be THAT distant? Green 'buys' the assets from D&P, now pretty much proven to be dodgy---something everyone kinda knew ----at a knock down price. Green is up to his forehead in this too. Didn't he attempt to buy property from Murray a while back?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
They are all a bunch of crooks. They have now fallen out. Could be fun.
They ignored the claim because he wasn't due anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Not sure you can be sure of that though when this is the same discredited mob who denied knowledge of the Ticketus deal and are sewing Whyte's solicitors on oldcorpse's behalf. Whyte did state he was secured on the Ticketus deal. D&P just wanted to run up a big fee and get their own bag of loot. Whyte seems to think he has money due anyway.
Go back to about page 5 on this thread :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Whyte's original position was that he had used his/his company's money to pay off Lloyds TSB. Accordingly RFC owed him that cash, and he took out a charge to secure the debt. So far, so good.
However, as we later discovered, he had actually used the Ticketus money (which was due to RFC) to fund the purchase. I can't remember the numbers, but the money he took from Ticketus was more than the money RFC owed the bank.
Net effect... RFC owed Whyte nothing, indeed he owed them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
yeah, I know that, but if the Ticketus money was secured to Whyte personally and not oldcorpse as he claimed it was ... We have the the Collyer Bristow case that's outcome will reveal more I assume.
We also have to go back to the time when Chuckie went north to meet Craigie to get him to sell his shares in Hunco for £1, and Chuckie gave him £2.
What was the real deal behind that ? Craigie must have been told that he was in for a cut later on. I'll bet he taped that converstaion.
The Ticketus money wasn't secured, it was the money that Whyte paid off the bank with that was. And that security was lodged with Companies House.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
He gave them personal gaurantees.
Anyway, Channel 4 (Alex Thomson) are running a segment on hun intimidation on their news tomorrow.
CW gave Ticketus a personal guarantee, but that's not relevant to his security over RFC.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Mibbae you legal peeps can enlighten me. I was always under the impression that recording somebody without their consent was illegal, or at least 'inadmissable' in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadtom
No chance there. Nobody would be allowed a wire tap or undercover surveillance in that case.
I was wondering about that myself....Quote:
Originally Posted by sadtom
Don't the cops need to apply for legal permission to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Are you implying that there was a stich up somewhere? :na na:
I suppose it's possible that Rangers (RIH) provided an indemnity over CW's personal liability in relation to the Ticketus money and that makes him think he has a claim under the security. Given his role in the whole affair I doubt it would be enforceable, but he may think it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
BTW, I thought the security was a floating charge. If so that means it was over all the assets of the company, not just Ibrox and Murray Park.
It is inadmissible in court - i.e. it can't be used as evidence, but I don't think it's actually illegal - journalists have recorded and broadcast many undercover recordings and not been charged with anything. Remember Bruce Grobelaar talking about match fixing?Quote:
Originally Posted by sadtom
Presumably, though, his claim was adjudicated by D&P and rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
And I think it was a floating charge too.
Legal or not, once the cat is out of the bag, I would have thought it can still negatively affect the person concerned in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Good! Because our mob certainly dont have the guts or desire to do it, do they? They are too busy intalling cameras and microphones in all the 3rd division grounds and loving them up. What an embarrassment they are....Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Thanks for the heads up. I will catch the piece via the Channel 4 News app.
Indeed. That's why barristers will often say something inadmissible in court and the judge directs the jury to disregard that remark - do they? Do they f***.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadtom
The Sheridan tape was hardly inadmissable was it. It got him charged with perjury.