Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[lapsedhibee]

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

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".

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?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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?

There's a big difference between what the Glazers did and what CW is charged with .

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

[lapsedhibee]

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

There's a big difference between what the Glazers did and what CW is charged with .

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.

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?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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?

£17.7m

The same amount he duped Ticketus into giving him to pay the bank off.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

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

£17.7m
The same amount he duped Ticketus into giving him to pay the bank off.

Ta. It's lucky that he can easily afford it.

[Is It On....]

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

Ta. It's lucky that he can easily afford it.

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 😂😂😂

[Fuzzywuzzy]

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.......

[Hibernia&Alba]

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

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.

Totally embarrassing and pish patter.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[brog]

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

There's a big difference between what the Glazers did and what CW is charged with .

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

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.

[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.

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.

[Moulin Yarns]

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.

[brog]

[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.

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,

[Jack Hackett]

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

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.......

I got as far as 'I don't know any chinky jokes and I deplore casual racism'... and gave up

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[Iain G]

[QUOTE=brog;5044255]

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

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.

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,

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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?

[ancient hibee]

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?

[lapsedhibee]

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

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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?

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.

[Ozyhibby]

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

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?

Def did not pay the small tax case. Remains unpaid to this day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

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)

[Smartie]

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.

[ancient hibee]

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

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.

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.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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.

This bit?

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

[ancient hibee]

Thank you.Far too many "that companies" for a man of my advanced years.And for the jury I suspect.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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.

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

[ancient hibee]

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.