Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Shades75]

I wonder how much legal weight the paragraph in D&P's document has. The one that states that in the event of the CVA proposal failing, that Sevco 5088 are compelled to complete the assett purchase.

Does it leave open the possibility of another company (Sevco Scotland) making the purchase? This is what Green suggests actually happened. Which does contradict the statements released to the press at that time.

Could the whole shooting match, and Whyte's potential claim, hinge on what actually happened here? Surely it wouldn't take too much digging to establish the facts here.

To me, it looks like there is actually, beneath all the bullshit, a truth in Green's claim in that Sevco Scotland did actually gain the assets without them ever being in the hands of Sevco 5088. I think, that even for him, that that is too big a lie to pull off for it to be otherwise.

So it might well be a case of Green v Whyte without much of the fallout affecting Rangers. But I'm sure that if Whyte's lawyers have the stomach for it, and the cash, there could be the mother of all shitstorms being kicked up here.

[As We Rise Again]

Brilliant. You don't check on what Green says, and you won't listen to what Whyte says.

Mind you, there's clearly no reason for you to actually follow what's going on at your club, as Charles Green is "usually good with the talking patter".

Un - fucking - believable.

There's no need for me to check on what Green says when everything he does gets put on here by the obsessive brigade.

Unbelievable Jeff.

[lodmoorhill]

I wonder how much legal weight the paragraph in D&P's document has. The one that states that in the event of the CVA proposal failing, that Sevco 5088 are compelled to complete the assett purchase.

Does it leave open the possibility of another company (Sevco Scotland) making the purchase? This is what Green suggests actually happened. Which does contradict the statements released to the press at that time.

Could the whole shooting match, and Whyte's potential claim, hinge on what actually happened here? Surely it wouldn't take too much digging to establish the facts here.

To me, it looks like there is actually, beneath all the bullshit, a truth in Green's claim in that Sevco Scotland did actually gain the assets without them ever being in the hands of Sevco 5088. I think, that even for him, that that is too big a lie to pull off for it to be otherwise.

So it might well be a case of Green v Whyte without much of the fallout affecting Rangers. But I'm sure that if Whyte's lawyers have the stomach for it, and the cash, there could be the mother of all shitstorms being kicked up here.

I would say that it could come down to more than just Green v Whyte. If Whyte can prove he had a claim on the assets via a deal with Green, then Green sold on assets he didn't wholly own via the share issue, then surely it has implications for the shareholders.

But, as you have said, it shouldn't take to much digging to find out the truth of the whole thing. The only reason I can think of for the lack of clarity so far, is that everyone involved has something to hide.

[Shades75]

When the CVA failed, any rights that Whyte had were gone, the descision to sell the assets and to who was 100% the descision of the administrators.

I take that as your opinion Tedi, not an undeniable fact. At least not until it can be established that the binding agreement in the CVA proposal that Sevco5088 are obliged to purchase the assets can be shown that it is actually not binding at all.

I think that any rights that Whyte had as a shareholder in Rangers did indeed become null and void when the CVA failed, but being a director/owner/investor in Sevco5088 is a completely different matter.

If Whyte, who was involved (subject to scrutiny) with Sevco5088, is so inclined - can Sevco5088 sue for breach of contract?

I am more than willing for anyone in the know on these matters to put me straight. I'm only asking the question.

[Shades75]

I would say that it could come down to more than just Green v Whyte. If Whyte can prove he had a claim on the assets via a deal with Green, then Green sold on assets he didn't wholly own via the share issue, then surely it has implications for the shareholders.

But, as you have said, it shouldn't take to much digging to find out the truth of the whole thing. The only reason I can think of for the lack of clarity so far, is that everyone involved has something to hide.

It looks to me that Whyte may not so much have a claim on the assets, not yet anyway, but that he might have a legal claim against Green. Basically it comes down to how much legal water the agreements that they came to hold, and if they can be proved.

It really does look like Green shafted Whyte big time.

I'm thinking that there must have been a provision somewhere for D&P to sell the assets to another company not stated in the CVA proposal. It just seems to obvious and easily scrutinised to be able to fly that one under the radar.

Why the similar names - "Sevco"?

[lodmoorhill]

When the CVA failed, any rights that Whyte had were gone, the descision to sell the assets and to who was 100% the descision of the administrators.

And the administrators appointed by Whyte then sold the assets to Whyte's preferred choice. And the real question is not which company the assets were sold to anyway, but what agreement Whyte and Green had and if it was documented. I think that Whyte could have been dismissed out of hand had money not changed hands; but it did, and not in any conventional way either.

[lodmoorhill]

Are you trying to suggest that the descision of who to sell the assets to was not completely up to the administrators?

And the administrators appointed by Whyte then sold the assets to Whyte's preferred choice.

I'd say it's pretty clear what I think about the administrators.

Edited April 10, 2013 by lodmoorhill

[johan scott]

Are you trying to suggest that the descision of who to sell the assets to was not completely up to the administrators?

Whyte had no say in the matter, these conversations he had were pre CVA.

Whyte was the puppet master of Duff and Phelps, it was always lined up that Green would come along as Whyte's front man, and they would settle up later once they had succeeded in stuffing the creditors and dumping all the debt. Now, predictably, they're fighting over the carcass. Next stop admin 2.

[lodmoorhill]

It is my opinion that the administrators were free to sell the assets to whatever bidder they felt represented the best deal to the creditors, whyte had no control over this. If he sold them to sevco 5088 and Whyte and Green did indeed have an agreement then he may have a claim should Green have subsequently transferred those assets without concent from all the shareholders of 5088, but if the administrators sold the assets directly to Sevco Scotland then it looks like Whyte does not have a case with Rangers but may be able to sue Green.

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you don't want to see the point I'm making.

If Green sold assets, via a flotation, that he didn't entirely own then surely those assets would have to be returned to their "rightful" owner. that in turn, would certainly affect the club.

Of course, everything is speculation, but if there had been honesty from any side in this dispute then there should have been clarity by now.

Why is it so hard to get the truth of it all?

[agentwhytehailhail]

Who is this rangers u speak of???

[Skudbook]

Of all the company names in the world Green chooses a clone ( I know) of the vehicle that both Whyte and he had to buy Rangers and the one that's named in the D and P documents .

At best it's suspicious ,wouldn't Whyte be better suing D and P for negligence ?

Or maybe they have better lawyers than green.

Just because Whyte may have previous as a "con man" in no way makes it legal ( both in criminal and civil law) to do him over.

You have to put Green in the category of exceptionally bright or downright stupid, but you can't deny either way a complete git.

[wunfellaff]

What a fantastic interview. Green is unraveling day by day. Fantastic viewing, will watch again. And again. And again. Til the next one....

[wunfellaff]

And here it is for posterity

[GreenockRover]

Of all the company names in the world Green chooses a clone ( I know) of the vehicle that both Whyte and he had to buy Rangers and the one that's named in the D and P documents .

At best it's suspicious ,wouldn't Whyte be better suing D and P for negligence ?

Or maybe they have better lawyers than green.

Just because Whyte may have previous as a "con man" in no way makes it legal ( both in criminal and civil law) to do him over.

You have to put Green in the category of exceptionally bright or downright stupid, but you can't deny either way a complete git.

At face value, it's looking like Green's self admission that he was trying to shaft Whyte (telling him what he wanted to hear) is evidenced by;

1. Whytes' successful attempt to appoint administrators of HIS choosing, despite HMRC's objection.

2. The utterly ridiculous CVA offer of 9p/£ which was clearly designed to fail. (*edit from 6p)

3. The orchestrated failure of would be suitors for the assets, followed by the final offer of preferred bidder status to Greens' (?) SevCo 5088

Now, if we are to believe Chuckie, He was stringing Whyte along and never received money from Whyte or his associate? If that was indeed the case, there would be no need for a name change to SevCo Scotland because Whyte would not have "paid in" to 5088.

Therefore, the name change to "Scotland" looks clearly designed to fool Whyte into thinking it's a subsidiary of 5088 if which he, through an associate, is a share holder.

Change of name sorted....Chuckie/Ahmed, let"s not forget his involvement here, "TRANSFER" those purchased assets from 5088 to "Scotland".... note....not SELL.

Whyte's not worried because he assumes his stake is still in place and awaits Chuckie's next move to generate fast cash....AIM floatation.

Chuckie is also happy, thinking he's bumped Whyte off the deal.

One #ahem!# successful floatation later, there's a decision to be made from Whyte...stick - or twist? If all goes as Chuckie says the cash starts rolling in and Whytes pay off is sorted.

However, nobody forsees the utter shambles Chuckie and Sally make of it and Whyte thinks.... time to cash and run, not unlike so many investors to date.

Whyte is given the "what do you mean, I owe you money" line by Green and the squabble begins....

Both of them...devious, untrustworthy scumbags fighting over ill gotten gains...how utterly utterly appropriate ;-)

D&Ps involvement needs scrutinized heavily, but will be able to worm their way out of sanctionable blame I'm sure.

f**k me.... "When Thieves Fall Out" eh?

Edited April 10, 2013 by GreenockRover

[bennett]

Well Tedi the Rangers fans better start asking Charlie some serious questions about what is going on.

IF it turns out that Whyte is telling the truth and he was conned by Green, wouldn't this raise big doubt about the sale?

If the CVA had been accepted then yes but with the whole newco route no, Whyte was made irrelevant when the CVA was rejected.

What we need to concentrate on is Greens lies and his recent actions over players and staff, plus his unsavoury racial comments.

[~~~]

Does this mean John Brown was correct when he said Whyte was still involved with Rangers all along?

[bennett]

Does this mean John Brown was correct when he said Whyte was still involved with Rangers all along?

Most Rangers fans believed him, he went about it in the wrong way though.

Why a lot of fans never renewed their season tickets and will continue to buy tickets on a game by game basis.

[bennett]

At face value, it's looking like Green's self admission that he was trying to shaft Whyte (telling him what he wanted to hear) is evidenced by;

1. Whytes' successful attempt to appoint administrators of HIS choosing, despite HMRC's objection.

2. The utterly ridiculous CVA offer of 6p/£ which was clearly designed to fail.

3. The orchestrated failure of would be suitors for the assets, followed by the final offer of preferred bidder status to Greens' (?) SevCo 5088

Now, if we are to believe Chuckie,

2. The CVA was going to fail no matter what, D&P allowed HMRC to claim for the BTC monies which was a major error on their part and should be investigated.

[wunfellaff]

If the CVA had been accepted then yes but with the whole newco route no, Whyte was made irrelevant when the CVA was rejected.

What we need to concentrate on is Greens lies and his recent actions over players and staff, plus his unsavoury racial comments.

And the bit about if CVA rejected, d+p would be compelled to sell to sevco 5088? Not sevco Scotland?

[williemillersmoustache]

To be clear, does this mean that the cheats were cheating each other when they were in the process of cheating the creditors after cheating the game of Scottish football, whilst playing a card game called cheat, wearing a wind cheater, eating cheetos? Or was this all just deliberate rule breaking, which is fine?