Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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).

[PatHead]

Wouldn't bet against Whyte having Green tapes and just ensuring he gets his money from a private arrangement by taking someone else down.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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).

Whyte did have a floating charge. That is not in dispute; it was registered at Companies House.

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.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Whyte did have a floating charge. That is not in dispute; it was registered at Companies House.

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.

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!

[steviehibsleith]

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

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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).

[The Green Goblin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Together?

[shagpile]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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?
They are all a bunch of crooks. They have now fallen out. Could be fun.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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!

They ignored the claim because he wasn't due anything.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They ignored the claim because he wasn't due anything.

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Go back to about page 5 on this thread

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.

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.

[Seveno]

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

He gave them personal gaurantees.




Anyway, Channel 4 (Alex Thomson) are running a segment on hun intimidation on their news tomorrow.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[sadtom]

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.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

No chance there. Nobody would be allowed a wire tap or undercover surveillance in that case.

[s.a.m]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

I was wondering about that myself....

[sadtom]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No chance there. Nobody would be allowed a wire tap or undercover surveillance in that case.

Don't the cops need to apply for legal permission to do so?

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

Are you implying that there was a stich up somewhere?

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

CW gave Ticketus a personal guarantee, but that's not relevant to his security over RFC.

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.

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.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

Presumably, though, his claim was adjudicated by D&P and rejected.

And I think it was a floating charge too.

[The Green Goblin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

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.

[The Green Goblin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He gave them personal gaurantees.

Anyway, Channel 4 (Alex Thomson) are running a segment on hun intimidation on their news tomorrow.

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....

Thanks for the heads up. I will catch the piece via the Channel 4 News app.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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***.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't the cops need to apply for legal permission to do so?

The Sheridan tape was hardly inadmissable was it. It got him charged with perjury.

[sadtom]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

Cheers.
Would this mean that other than it becoming public knowledge, there will be no legal 'come back' on D&P?

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cheers.
Would this mean that other than it becoming public knowledge, there will be no legal 'come back' on D&P?

I think the tape itself is inadmissible i.e. it couldn't be played, but the conversation could be be discussed and because the contents have now become public knowledge D&P would look pretty foolish if they tried to deny it took place or dispute what was said. They could claim the tape was a mock-up and the BBC was 'duped' by CW, but the BBC claim to have used a voice recognition expert so I think they'd be on a sticky wicket.