And don’t forget Ticketus

Said it for ages,Whyte ,Ahmed,Green and co will make more money out of this fiasco than they could ever dream of making out of 'owning' Rangers.It's now becoming clear that it was a little naive of us to believe there wasn't a concerted plan from the beginning.The trouble is that the ones capable of forensically taking apart what exactly went on are probably involved somewhere along the line.
 
Danger Zone said:
The whole takeover is like an onion, the more layers you peel, the more it stinks
Click to expand...
No one in court unpeeled it.
No one in the investigation laid it bare.

The involvement of Findlay as a defence lawyer, given his previous involvement with Rangers was clearly an unprofessional conflict of interest.
It should never have been allowed.

The entire matter should have been transferred to London where the initial monies were first moved in a dubious manner.
This would have removed the criminal scrutiny into a more dispassionate and impartial arena, competent at dealing with this sort of alleged criminality.

One aspect of the evidence disclosed, showed that those involved were prepared to tempt every single Rangers season ticket holder into imparting with their money, in circumstances where important information wasn't disclosed to them as potential creditors of the club.
There is an element of admitted intent to deceive in this alone.

If nothing else it demonstrates that there is no appetite in the UK for dealing with fast and loose business practices that jeopardise ordinary members of the public.
 
Last edited:
johnkp said:
Part 3

Findlay
I don't argue. I ask questions. So, Ticketus wanted their involvement kept secret?

Bryan
To a point.

Findlay
What point? Ticketus didn't want their deal known, but also didn't want to embarrass Murray? Did you keep it secret from him?

Bryan
Ultimately, yes.

Findlay
Can you embarrass a company? Was it not the case that you didn't want Murray to know because he might pull the plug on the deal. Was it not the case that you didn't care about embarrassing him? If you were genuinely concerned, why didn't someone pick up the phone and ask him, rather than all this rigmarole?

Bryan
Contacting Murray would have been a breach of financial regulations.

Findlay
Rangers were also a client. Why didn't you speak to them?

Bryan
I didn't speak to them.

Findlay
Yes. The mythical Chinese wall. Why didn't Ticketus didn't investigate through their lawyers?

Bryan
We eventually did.

Findlay
Will I find that on a piece of paper, anywhere?

Bryan
I don't think you will.

Findlay
Do you know of any communication between Ticketus' lawyers and the Murray Group's lawyers?

Bryan
I would have expected the Murray team to notice references to third-party funding in the Share Purchase Agreement. It was Ticketus who asked for reference to third-party funding to be added to the Share Purchase Agreement. I expected the Murray Group lawyers to ask about the changes, but it didn't happen.

The court was shown a Ticketus memo, saying, "We would expect word of our involvement to filter back to Sir David. We need to ensure that has no motive to release an unhelpful statement to the press, even though unhappy fans still buy season tickets."

Findlay
You didn't care about David Murray.

Bryan
It would have been embarrassing for Murray, that new owner had solved the bank debt problem.

Findlay
You had no intention of pulling the plug.

Bryan
The risk changed from October to May.

Findlay
Had Ticketus' lawyers for Ticketus examined the legal aspects of the deal?

Bryan
The view was that if ownership had been transferred, the deal was legal.

Findlay
The Ticketus memo states, "Our funding is not required to purchase the club, hence there is no legal issue with financial assistance.” That would suggest that Ticketus had received expert legal advice that the deal was legal.

Bryan
That was when he was paying £5m.

Findlay
Did you get further advice when the price dropped to a pound?

Bryan
We didn't repeat the exercise.

Findlay
Did Ticketus ever get confirmation from David Murray, confirming he knew about the 3rd-party funding?

Bryan
I don't think we did.

Findlay
Was there a phone call from Whyte, saying he had talked to David Murray about 3rd-party funding?

Bryan
At this time, I don't recall.

Findlay
Are you seriously saying Ticketus took no steps to Independently check?

Bryan
No. It was in the Share Purchase Agreement, so we expected that he had read it.

Findlay
You are saying it's clear that Murray must have known there was 3rd-party funding?

Bryan
Yes.

At that point, the Court was adjourned, to resume on Thursday 18 May, at 10am.



Day 17 - Thu 18 May 17
As was the case on Days 13 to 16, the only Twitter feed available was from James Doleman - a well-known Rangers hater, so accuracy and impartiality should be judged in that context.

Bryan
Ticketus wanted the club to be successful, so that it would continue to sell season tickets.

Findlay
Is it not the normal process with 3rd-party funding, to put the money in an "escrow" account until the deal is completed.

Bryan
Yes.

Findlay
It's not going to be someone handing over £20m in a suitcase, is it?

Bryan
No.

Findlay
Were you aware that Andrew Ellis and Chris Akers were interested in buying Rangers, before Whyte got involved?

Bryan
Yes.

Findlay
Did a member of the Investment committee make inquiries about Akers and Ellis?

Bryan
He said he would speak to contacts in Scotland.

Findlay
Do you remember telephone call from a William Murdoch about people buying Rangers?

Bryan
Yes.

Findlay
Do you remember an e-mail exchange with a Paul Hassal?

Bryan
Yes. Hassal made an inquiry about doing a deal with Ticketus.

Findlay
He knew about the Whyte deal with Rangers?

Bryan
Yes.

Findlay
So two people outside the deal knew about it?

Bryan
Unfortunately, yes. I got cold-called once, by someone who knew about the deal with Rangers and asked if Ticketus would be interested in another Scottish club.

Findlay
Whyte set up a company - Wavetower - specially for the Rangers deal. The company had no assets, so any guarantees regarding finance were worthless.

Findlay
Originally, Murray wanted £5m for his shares. Eventually, he gave them away for nothing.

Bryan
This coincided with the discussion of the tax case.

Findlay
When did Ticketus become aware of the 'small' and 'big' tax cases?

Bryan
They didn't come up in due diligence. We found out about them in the April or May. Normally, you would expect these things to be disclosed. They should have been in initial data room.

The court was shown an e-mail, dated 5 April 2011, from Bryan to Phil Betts, David Grier and others titled 'Tax Case Hurdle Info'.

Bryan
Grier was assisting Whyte with the tax cases. His company - Menzies Corporate Restructuring (MCR) - were later taken over by Duff and Phelps, administrators of Rangers.

Findlay
So, if Grier said later that he didn't know about Ticketus, that would have been an absolute lie?

Bryan
It would certainly be hard to believe. One of the scenarios for the big tax case I discussed in my e-mail was, "Murray loses and HMRC want it all." Technically, Rangers could 'phoenix' the club. That means putting the club into administration to clear out the problems. I would have expected the £2.8m 'small' tax case bill to have been disclosed earlier in the process.

In a later e-mail email from Bryan to Whyte and Phill Betts on the tax cases, Bryan wrote, "I'm nervous about the quality of information the club is supplying. The press coverage of the £2.8m 'small' tax case does nothing to instill confidence in the club's truthfulness. Craig (Whyte) is of the opinion, after his private discussions with HMRC, that £5m a year over a few years would satisfy them.

However, the maximum potential liability in the 'big' tax case could be as high as £100m. Should HMRC win the big tax case, we should instruct an administrator to protect our interests. The club is pre-packed to rid it of the HMRC debt and Craig/Wavetower would take control and honour the Ticketus agreement.

Scottish administration differs from English law, in that it looks after the charge-holder first and foremost. Craig will call the shots, but we need to be crystal clear that he would be in control.

How would the SPL treat a pre-pack? We need clarity on the scenario of the club losing its licence to play. “

Findlay
Who thought up the 'pre-pack' admin situation?

Bryan
That came from Whyte's side.

Findlay
It's clear that the tax issues might have scared the Investment Committee completely. Is it safe to say that the jury may conclude Murray hadn't been entirely candid about information in the data room?

Bryan
Correct.

Findlay
The second the deal was signed, and the cap put back on the pen, the money was available?

Bryan
That's the normal procedure.

With that, Findlay ended his cross-examination.

Advocate Depute Alex Prentice QC (prosecuting) started his re-examination.

Prentice
Ticketus had no access to the content of the data room, and no contact with Murray?

Bryan
Correct

Prentice
So you had to rely on what people told you?

Bryan
Yes. We couldn't go in directly and ask questions. Ticketus didn't want word of the proposed deal leaking out to the wider community. We never called Murray.

With that, Bryan completed his testimony
Click to expand...

Seriously, Findlay done a proper cross examination pretty much laid it on a plate for prosecutors and they asked two questions....

That is incompetence at the highest level or that is someone not putting the effort in because of allegiances they have elsewhere.

Its as clear as day they were all in cahoots, Ticketus, Whyte, Grier, Duff and Phelps the lot of them. It was clear the plan was always to take money from the club and put us in admin. Its pretty clear Ticketus didn't want to involve Murray because they knew it would probably end the deal. Was this Share Purchase agreement shown in court? Did Murray sign it?

Then is the Wavetower nonsense, a company with no assets that they have loaned money to and that doesn't ring alarm bells.
 
linthousebear1981 said:
Seriously, Findlay done a proper cross examination pretty much laid it on a plate for prosecutors and they asked two questions....

That is incompetence at the highest level or that is someone not putting the effort in because of allegiances they have elsewhere.

Its as clear as day they were all in cahoots, Ticketus, Whyte, Grier, Duff and Phelps the lot of them. It was clear the plan was always to take money from the club and put us in admin. Its pretty clear Ticketus didn't want to involve Murray because they knew it would probably end the deal. Was this Share Purchase agreement shown in court? Did Murray sign it?

Then is the Wavetower nonsense, a company with no assets that they have loaned money to and that doesn't ring alarm bells.
Click to expand...

I assume Prentice only asked two questions because the case was against Whyte and he wants to demonstrate that Whyte did not properly inform Ticketus.
 
linthousebear1981 said:
Seriously, Findlay done a proper cross examination pretty much laid it on a plate for prosecutors and they asked two questions....

That is incompetence at the highest level or that is someone not putting the effort in because of allegiances they have elsewhere.

Its as clear as day they were all in cahoots, Ticketus, Whyte, Grier, Duff and Phelps the lot of them. It was clear the plan was always to take money from the club and put us in admin. Its pretty clear Ticketus didn't want to involve Murray because they knew it would probably end the deal. Was this Share Purchase agreement shown in court? Did Murray sign it?

Then is the Wavetower nonsense, a company with no assets that they have loaned money to and that doesn't ring alarm bells.
Click to expand...
Actually, Findlay's cross-examination skirted the subject.
He went as far as he wanted and no more.
He wouldn't have asked a question he didn't already know the answer to.

However, you are probably right, the prosecution lawyers went at it like wet lettuces.
No one in this court was interested, as someone mentioned above, in unpeeling any onion.

This investigation was compromised from the beginning by the lack of impartiality due to the sectarian and political nature of Scotland.
Indeed every problem that Rangers incurred was driven by malevolent forces that exist behind every part of the landscape that the club operates within.
 
Last edited:
govanite said:
I think we need to investigate the bank somebody there must have gave ticketus a garauntee. No way a company is given so much money to lend without guarantee from an associated bank.
Click to expand...
I recall at the time that Ticketus operations in England(selling future seasons STs ), gets them a preferred creditor status, whereas in Scotland this is not the case, they are just lumped in with the rest.
 
linthousebear1981 said:
Seriously, Findlay done a proper cross examination pretty much laid it on a plate for prosecutors and they asked two questions....

That is incompetence at the highest level or that is someone not putting the effort in because of allegiances they have elsewhere.

Its as clear as day they were all in cahoots, Ticketus, Whyte, Grier, Duff and Phelps the lot of them. It was clear the plan was always to take money from the club and put us in admin. Its pretty clear Ticketus didn't want to involve Murray because they knew it would probably end the deal. Was this Share Purchase agreement shown in court? Did Murray sign it?

Then is the Wavetower nonsense, a company with no assets that they have loaned money to and that doesn't ring alarm bells.
Click to expand...
Do we really believe that all the shenanigans involving these funds occurred without Murray having an inkling?
No one can be sure, but the fact that Murray has kept mostly stum and stayed out of the picture in regard to these events suggests a conscience that is anything but clear.
Previously as we well know, Murray was never slow in coming forward and liked to project himself in the public sphere as a figure of importance.
His nonappearance last night further suggests he knows that his presence near Rangers Football Club is anything but appropriate, one suspects.
 
Stanley said:
Who put Whyte up to it in the first place? He came from nowhere. What were his links back then, and with whom? I suspect that the link will stretch over to the East End of the city and probably London and Dublin.
Click to expand...

John Reid will be behind it all IMO.

Whether we ever get to the truth of that then who knows, but he had the influence and the power to pull the strings to make it happen.
 
mdingwall said:
Next part to consider which is in the liquidators report.

Why have Ticketus reduced their claim in the liquidation from £27m to £11m ?

Could it be they couldn’t provide satisfactory evidence to support their claim ?
Click to expand...

Feck, I'd forgotten all about them...
 
Bigbluebear said:
John Reid will be behind it all IMO.

Whether we ever get to the truth of that then who knows, but he had the influence and the power to pull the strings to make it happen.
Click to expand...
We are going to nail Rangers to the floor.
If he did indeed say this, then what did this mean?
 
Euro Scooter said:
The ticketus money was not a loan, it was the purchase of an asset in the form of season tickets.
Click to expand...
But does the principle not remain, as I recall it he did not have ownership / good title to the asset he was selling at the time of the sale?
My recollection might be wrong.
 
bilkobear said:
Do we really believe that all the shenanigans involving these funds occurred without Murray having an inkling?
No one can be sure, but the fact that Murray has kept mostly stum and stayed out of the picture in regard to these events suggests a conscience that is anything but clear.
Previously as we well know, Murray was never slow in coming forward and liked to project himself in the public sphere as a figure of importance.
His nonappearance last night further suggests he knows that his presence near Rangers Football Club is anything but appropriate, one suspects.
Click to expand...
Murray is up to his neck in this. I utterly detest the cnut
 
Also, I would take it as a fairly safe bet that Whyte was introduced to Ticketus via Andrew Ellis as a result of his previous dealings with Murray. Ticketus were only involved with four or five major football clubs at the time and were not involved in money lending, just investment in assets.
 
Cahoochie said:
But does the principle not remain, he did not have ownership / good title to the asset he was selling at the time of the sale?
Click to expand...

In principle I would agree but the legalities of it look frightningly complex. It should not be possible but it was fairly common practice (maybe still is) to purchase a company using its own assets.
 
Euro Scooter said:
The ticketus money was not a loan, it was the purchase of an asset in the form of season tickets.
Click to expand...
That is an arguable point.
Season tickets are not really an asset, any more than unsold seats in a theatre are an asset.
For instance, who would have bought a season ticket that season if they knew that very little of the money was going directly to the club but was instead financing a loan that had little merit in the future stability of the football club?

Perhaps a difficult question, but one that is perhaps best answered by the guy from Ticketus himself, who told the court that they were anxious that details of their business dealings did not leak out to season ticket holders, who then may have been less willing to part with their cash.
 
That is an arguable point.
Season tickets are not really an asset, any more than unsold seats in a theatre are an asset.
For instance, who would have bought a season ticket that season if they knew that very little of the money was going directly to the club but was instead financing a loan that had little merit in the future stability of the football club?

Perhaps a difficult question, but one that is perhaps best answered by the guy from Ticketus himself, who told the court that they were anxious that details of their business dealings did not leak out to season ticket holders, who then may have been less willing to part with their cash.
Click to expand...

For the bolded part, I would agree, but legally they are, same as the Theatre example. The parent company of Octopus are a not-for-profit investor. They are regulated that way, not as a lender.
 
Taki said:
I thought Ticketus were genuine innocents in this. They were shafted by Whyte lying to them - partly their own fault really - and then were awarded damages in the High Court only for Whyte to declare himself bankrupt.
Click to expand...
If you are a position to hand over 27 mill and not do proper due diligence I sm not sure I can feel too sorry for you.
 
JD1872 said:
I find it hard to believe ticketus could be that incompetent. I’m sure the story was whyte submitted the application using Rangers headed paper but surely they do not make a payment that size without doing significant due diligence. Lets not forget the club had an existing relationship with ticketus, whyte has basically asked them to pay £27m into an account that isn’t Rangers account.

I appreciate regulations were not as strict in those days but surely the alarm bells were ringing
Click to expand...
Was only 3 years after the financial crash so you'd hope they'd have done robust due diligence before sending Whyte funds!
 
Very little sympathy for ticketus in this whole scenario.

They loaned Whyte an incredible amount of money and didn't do any due diligence. They were only interested in pound signs and corporate greed.

Still can't get my head round how Whyte was able to borrow money on the strength of something he didn't own at the time? If that's not the very definition of fraud then I don't know what is?
 
I seem to remember the HMRC Twitter account tweeting a late night tweet claiming they don't comment on individual cases.

Have I made that up?
 
deBoersHeader said:
I seem to remember the HMRC Twitter account tweeting a late night tweet claiming they don't comment on individual cases.

Have I made that up?
Click to expand...
I don't think you have made that up, but it's difficult to keep track all these years on.There were ample accounts of what went on and I'm sure they will be held somewhere on the internet.What is certain, is that HMRC are the bankers, so to speak and they hold the keys to lots of vital information that would assist in getting to the bottom of what went on.It's further hampered by a lack of will on the part of the respective authorities to rake over the coals.Perhaps they will uncover some uncomfortable truths and we couldn't have that could we.
 
The Double A Man said:
I don't think you have made that up, but it's difficult to keep track all these years on.There were ample accounts of what went on and I'm sure they will be held somewhere on the internet.What is certain, is that HMRC are the bankers, so to speak and they hold the keys to lots of vital information that would assist in getting to the bottom of what went on.It's further hampered by a lack of will on the part of the respective authorities to rake over the coals.Perhaps they will uncover some uncomfortable truths and we couldn't have that could we.
Click to expand...
It was bizarre as I seem to remember a lot of heat was on HMRC at the time.

There's definitely something dodgy with HMRC in how we were targeted.

The truth will out one day.
 
RFCStu said:
For me it's still a pertinent question as how Whyte secured the Ticketus loan before he had control of the club.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 100%

Company law dictates that you cannot use a Company's assets (Rangers Season ticket revenue stream) to purchase the company.

You have to have a verified statement of funds which is where that lady's front bottom Gary Withey came in.

In my opinion, just conjecture of course, there had to be some collusion with Ticketus and potentially SDM.
 
deBoersHeader said:
It was bizarre as I seem to remember a lot of heat was on HMRC at the time.

There's definitely something dodgy with HMRC in how we were targeted.

The truth will out one day.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure but I think REID was Home Secretary at one point and he could have made sure HMRC went after us big style hence the cry from him about nailing us to the floor,how rangers have just let all this go unchallenged hurts me more than the actual crimes,I honestly thought DK would have tried to get to the bottom of all of it but alas I was wrong.
 
Smarmy wee fucking prick!

Should've took one for the team outside court the day and just rattled the nut in him.

Could fall in shite and come out with gold the fucking tit.
 
butch70 said:
I’m not sure but I think REID was Home Secretary at one point and he could have made sure HMRC went after us big style hence the cry from him about nailing us to the floor,how rangers have just let all this go unchallenged hurts me more than the actual crimes,I honestly thought DK would have tried to get to the bottom of all of it but alas I was wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how long HMRC were looking into us but he was only Home Secretary until 2007 but that's not to say he didn't have his contacts.

There is every possibility he had some involvement but I doubt there will be any shred of evidence.
 
bloodandfire said:
Making sense now why HMRC allowed Whyte to pick his own administrators.
Had BDO got the gig all this skullduggery would have been laid bare at an early stage.
Click to expand...
In a way I'm glad BDO, never got the gig. BDO, have already stated that one of the first things they would have done, was to sell Ibrox, and Auchenhowie, to the highest bidder. We would probably have ended up renting our home , and training complex, back at exorbitant rates. White got his own administrators in, to make sure that when the club came out the other side, he was able to still hold some rites to the assets. The Blue knights, were told the would have to get Whites agreement, for them to become favoured bidders. White didn't like Paul Murray, so Murray, stepped away from the Blue Knights. But sleekit Charlie, and his wee friend took White in, and just when it looked like they had bought Rangers, Ibrox, and the training centre, for five and a half million, sleekit Green, and his wee pal, gazumped White, and left him out of the deal. This shower all made lots of money out of Rangers, they all had their hands in the moneypot. Thankfully its Rangers people who are in charge now. And the charlatans, are just a bad memory. Here's to the next 150 years, and beyond. "Come on, the Rangers, for we are the people."
 
The Double A Man said:
I seem to recall he said it at one of their AGMs.Is it just coincidence that he has disappeared from public view, dare I suggest out of sight out of mind so that the public forget his possible involvement in all of this.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t Reid. It was never said at an AGM but was attributed to Lawwell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top