Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[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?

[GreenockRover]

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.

Sorry Bennett, I wasn't finished....fat fingers you see....and small phone keyboards!

But yes, D&P need looked into as well.

[Ned Nederlander]

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?

Yip - and then they were bought by Craig Whyte !!

[bennett]

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.

Sorry Bennett, I wasn't finished....fat fingers you see....and small phone keyboards!

But yes, D&P need looked into as well.

I doubt they ever will be.

[Jacksgranda]

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?

It was obviously an admin error by Green.

[WaffenThinMint]

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, 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?

You omitted to mention the trousering of the money from the Yank that was looking to buy Rangers and who had to pay to get to see the books which he took off in fright - a nice little earner that was for D&P.

But otherwise what you've said does make a lot of sense, & all the parts of this carry on to date fall into place. It looks to me like Whyte indulging in some brinkmanship, knowing the longer he's the spectre at the feast the greater the chances of the authorities deciding there's a case to answer of criminal conspiracy to defraud creditors and shareholders - taking over a company & deliberately hastening it's demise in order to put it into admin so it can become a debt free newco.

I'll reckon the punt down to Division 3 wasn't in their plans - they reckoned on Division 1 at worst - but they still thought it would be business as usual in the Scottish Cup, League Cup & Challenge Cup, which would make up for it revenue wise & with the new marks er I mean investors on the board, the fans would remain happy & the profits turned.

Now that has gone wrong & the club is haemorraging £1 million a month during the season, with the close season looming Whyte's starts getting nervous about ever seeing his cut, especially given Green's history, goes looking for it, finds out he's being sucked in turn, & so with nothing to lose (except perhaps his liberty) starts the current shannanigans.

If only Bob Crampsey had been alive to see and write of all this...