Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Is that from something said on twitter or was it mentioned in court?

Think GF said it in one of his posts last week, which summarised Doleman's Tweets, which reported the Court activity.

So.... both

[Bostonhibby]

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

Shakesnaft?

Donald Findlay would be a nun

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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

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.

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.

[Iain G]

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

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.

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?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Do they not become his own resources ones he owns the thing though?

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.

[HoboHarry]

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

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.

You still believe that the owners (Murray et al) didn't know what he was doing?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

You still believe that the owners (Murray et al) didn't know what he was doing?

I've said from the start (circa 1897) that SDM had to have known.

I'm sitting on the fence, though, as to whether that can be proved (either way) in Court.

[greenginger]

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

I've said from the start (circa 1897) that SDM had to have known.

I'm sitting on the fence, though, as to whether that can be proved (either way) in Court.

Will the various taped conversations be admissible as evidence ?

[ancient hibee]

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.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

Think GF said it in one of his posts last week, which summarised Doleman's Tweets, which reported the Court activity.

So.... both

Yeah. AD said he would finish his witnesses this week.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[Iain G]

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

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...?

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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...?

Wait for the next instalment, when DF gets going

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[Billy Whizz]

Any significance on John Gillagan stepping down from the Rangers Board?

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[Iain G]

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

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

[Dashing Bob S]

As much as I love a good protracted Hun civil war, I wish we could just fast forward to a disaster movie ending.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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.jpg

[Jack]

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

As much as I love a good protracted Hun civil war, I wish we could just fast forward to a disaster movie ending.

Are you running out of popcorn?

You should have bought the GIANT size :-)

[Deansy]

I'm just surprised David Murray permitted this court-case to be heard !

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

[ACLeith]

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

or did they not ask the questions as Murray was so desperate to offload the club to the first patsy who looked vaguely plausible...?

Nail on head Iain

[Deansy]

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' ??

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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.

The trial is less than halfway through. What makes you think that it's a farce?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

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

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.

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' ??.

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' ?

[jacomo]

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

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' ??.

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' ?

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.

[Deansy]

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

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 ?

[CentreLine]

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

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 ?

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?