And don’t forget Ticketus

The thing I don't understand about Ticketus and the Whyte/David Murray deal is:-

How can Ticketus provide a loan to Whyte secured against future season ticket sales when he had no authority within the club? This could only have been done with David Murray's signed security. It's like me taking a loan out secured against a strangers house. Doesn't happen.
You do get a mortgage to buy a stranger's house though. Seems similar.
 
The thing I don't understand about Ticketus and the Whyte/David Murray deal is:-

How can Ticketus provide a loan to Whyte secured against future season ticket sales when he had no authority within the club? This could only have been done with David Murray's signed security. It's like me taking a loan out secured against a strangers house. Doesn't happen.

Whyte's dealings with Ticketus were as dodgy as hell.

These are notes taken at Whyte's trial in Apr/May 17. A decent prosecutor would have driven a coach and horses through this - and many other aspects of Whyte's actions.

On Day 15 of the trial - Tue 16 May 17, Ross Bryan (formerly of Octopus Capital - Ticketus’ parent company) was called to the stand.

Bryan (38) told the court that he is a private investor, based in London. He previously worked as an investment manager at Octopus Capital. Octopus invested money for clients with the aim of producing a good return.

The company made profits via fees. Ticketus was the brand name for an investment product - ‘you buy a ticket for 90p and sell it for £1.’ Ticketus would own the tickets and club would usually sell them. Rangers had a previous arrangement with Ticketus before 2011, for a small amount of money.

Bryan pointed to Whyte in the dock, saying he met him in October 2010 to discuss the proposed deal. The Ticketus product was not heavily promoted, as there was a sensitivity about selling season tickets. Previous deals were in the low single-digit millions. But, with Whyte, this was to extended to a multi-season deal.

Bryan
Ticketus liked the club, the fans are very supportive, Whyte was charming. Our own lawyers said we could talk about the deal if we made it conditional on purchase. Octopus were keen to let Murray know that a financial company was involved in the takeover. We were worried about a fans ticket boycott, so we wanted David Murray to be informed. We actually discussed doing the same deal with Murray's advisers. They refused.

The court was shown minutes of an Octopus meeting.

Bryan
We were concerned that Murray didn't know about the funding, and how that might have lead to a significant public relations issue. I was instructed to speak to Whyte to ask for assurances that Murray was aware of the transaction. I received an email from Whyte, assuring me that Murray had been informed that, “It was not all Craig's money.”

At that point, the Court was adjourned, to resume on Wednesday, 17 May, at 10am.

Part 2 next.
 
Part 2

Day 16 - Wed 17 May 17
Trial resumed for Day 16 - Ross Bryan continued his testimony.

As was the case on Days 13, 14 and 15, 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 asked for an 'awareness letter' confirming that Murray knew of third-party involvement.

The court was shown an email from Bryan to Whyte and Phill Betts dated 3 March 2011 saying, "One last deep breath to get over the line. The slam dunk on this issue would be to get Murray to write a confirmation letter."

Bryan
They wanted Murray to know there was an 'institution' involved in the takeover. The club would not be in debt to Ticketus, but season ticket income would be lower. In effect, when the fans bought the ticket the money wouldn't go to the club.

The court was a draft letter, saying that Murray had been offered, and accepted 'Life Presidency' of the club.

The court was also shown an e-mail from Whyte, in which he said that the Ticketus request is 'pretty much' what he has discussed with Murray. Whyte goes on to say, "In conversations with Murray, I mentioned a third party would be providing a significant chunk of the funding."

The court was then shown a letter, signed by Whyte, saying that he had spoken to Murray about 3rd-party funding. Bryan's reply to Whyte, said, "The Chairman is happy with the letter. I'll let you know asap if we're in the clear."

Bryan
The agreement with Whyte took into account, the possibility of Rangers entering into an insolvency event. The Ticketus deal would have a major financial impact on Rangers, and it required board approval. Ticketus paid the season ticket money to Rangers, who lent it to Wavetower, who paid the bank debt. Paying the bank debt to Lloyds was a condition of providing the funds to Whyte. The total deal was £24m - £18m to pay Lloyds, £2m 'free cash' to the club, and the rest in VAT.

Donald Findlay QC (representing Whyte) began his cross-examination

Bryan
Octopus managed around £1b+ in funds in 2010, with about 120 employees. My job was to source Investment opportunities and then progress them into legal contracts. Octopus had a duty not to take unnecessary risks with their client's money. I was first approached about Rangers by Nigel Farr.

He was hoping to get a brokers fee, and he also introduced Phill Betts, who was an 'asset backed banker'. Betts arranged Whyte's first meeting at the Octopus office. I believe there where other gentlemen there, but I can't recall their names. Ticketus had 12 football clients, Manchester United among them. We worked with 6 English Premier league clubs, and some in Europe. Rangers were our only Scottish clients.

Findlay
A great number of people in football would know about Ticketus?

Bryan
Only 3-4 at each club. Other staff at football clubs might know about any deal with Ticketus, 100 or so?

Findlay
Apart from Whyte, is there anyone else you know in this courtroom?

Bryan
A solicitor for Octopus is in the court.

Findlay
I had noticed you kept looking over there. So, from that first meeting, there was the possibility of buying the shares?

Bryan
All avenues were open. I can't recall if the Lloyds debt was discussed at the first meeting. It may not have been mentioned until 2011.

The court was shown a Ticketus memo from October 2010, which mentions repayment of the bank debt. The deal being discussed at that point was £20m for 45% of season tickets in year one, 45% in year two and 35% in year 3. The memo notes, if they added the existing deal, Ticketus would control 61% of the club's season tickets in 2011-2012.

Bryan
Selling season tickets was sensitive. Fans might have staged a boycott. We were not hungry for publicity. We (Ticketus) wanted Murray to know about 3rd-party involvement to avoid embarrassment. We didn't want to embarrass the seller.

Findlay
Are you sticking with that?

Bryan
Yes.

Findlay
If you spend £500 on a season ticket, you might hope that the club is getting the benefit. But £50 is going to some fund in London.

Bryan
Ok, yes.

Findlay
The matter required secrecy?

Bryan
You could argue that.
 
The thing I don't understand about Ticketus and the Whyte/David Murray deal is:-

How can Ticketus provide a loan to Whyte secured against future season ticket sales when he had no authority within the club? This could only have been done with David Murray's signed security. It's like me taking a loan out secured against a strangers house. Doesn't happen.

Nope. He would have pledged to register a charge as soon as he has the asset via his solicitor.

This is the same when you buy a house - you need to draw down the mortgage to pay for it so you can actually buy it.

Really simple everyday type of legal transaction.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Whyte offered his own personal guarantees to secure the loan - think he claimed to be worth £33m.
I can claim to be worth that aswel it's obviously not true tho:) how the hell did he find somone to give him it without checking?
 
What's the £9m? Ticketus lent Whyte £24m and haven't seen a penny of it back.
Mark mentioned 27 mill I thought it was 26 mill and you think 24 mill.

My 9 mill is the difference between what ticketus gave him and what he gave the bank
 
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
Pre-pack admin discussed. Before the deal was even concluded. Mental.

Just happens to be Ashley's speciality, doesn't it?

Are Newcastle one of the English clubs that had dealings with ticketus I wonder?
 
Remember this asset moving.Car wars for Craig Whyte and his ex-wife
By DAVID LOVE and GORDON TAIT
18th July 2012, 11:00 pm

Updated: 6th April 2016, 12:36 am
THE ex-wife of former Rangers owner Craig Whyte yesterday demanded his plush
Bentley motor is sold off — to pay back cash she claims he owes her after
their marriage split.
Estranged missus Kim wants the car to be flogged at an auction so the
41-year-old businessman can settle his debt.
And yesterday a court heard the tycoon made sinister threats to his ex after
she had the exclusive £60,000 vehicle impounded.
It’s claimed Whyte had threatened to send “a couple of heavies” to get the
luxury car back.
But Inverness Sheriff Court heard that sheriff officers from Scott and Co in
the city had the Bentley uplifted and moved to a secret secure location
earlier this week.
Kim, 42, had previously won a legal fight to have a temporary ‘attachment’
order put on the car so that it could be sold off at auction.

Details of the debt were not revealed in court, but it is believed that Whyte
has failed to hand over several monthly payments of £5,000 which were agreed
as part of their separation deal.
Solicitor Jenna Sharp, acting for Kim, petitioned Sheriff Philip Mann to have
the restriction order on the posh motor, which was previously kept at the
former marital home of Castle Grant, in Grantown-on-Spey, Moray, made
permanent.
Ms Sharp told the court: “Information was received that the debtor told Mrs
Whyte that he was sending someone to get the vehicle, despite the
attachment.
“The vehicle was then retrieved by Scott and Co who had received information
that a couple of heavies were coming to get the vehicle and it is now in a
secure location.”
Charles McCaffray, of Scott and Co, added: “We heard that the vehicle was
going to be removed so we uplifted it and have it secured.


“Our next move is to arrange for the vehicle to be taken to the Central Belt
to get it sold. The auctioneers up here are not in a position to value and
sell the car.”
Whyte was not represented at the brief hearing yesterday and neither he nor
Kim were present.
At the Court of Session in Edinburgh earlier this year, Whyte was ordered to
pay £5,000 a month to Kim, the mother of his three children.
The businessman, who refused to disclose his financial position to the court,
handed over the first maintenance payment but then ignored the instalment
due in March.
The couple, who married in Florida in 2000, now live at separate addresses in
Grantown-on-Spey. Whyte also has a home in Monaco.

Since the split, the Motherwell-born tycoon has been in a relationship with
32-year-old Izabella Andersson.
The stunning Swedish blonde — who has a degree in media and communication
science and speaks three languages — is studying for an MBA at the
University of Monaco.
 
Greed is a terrible thing. They probably saw an easy opportunity to make several million on just providing a loan and weren't about to ask too many questions.

Look at how the Glazers acquired Man United - chancers sometimes can get lucky. Of course sadly for us (and Ticketus) Whyte was only in it to fill his pockets, cover his tracks and take us under as quickly as possible.

I get your point but how anyone thought they could get money out of this is a mystery. Don't forget at the time the loan was given there was a potentially huge tax debt hanging over us. I can see the point in Charles Green and the fat cockney getting involved it was low risk high reward for them. But Ticketus just makes no sense.
 
Part 2

Day 16 - Wed 17 May 17
Trial resumed for Day 16 - Ross Bryan continued his testimony.

As was the case on Days 13, 14 and 15, 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 asked for an 'awareness letter' confirming that Murray knew of third-party involvement.

The court was shown an email from Bryan to Whyte and Phill Betts dated 3 March 2011 saying, "One last deep breath to get over the line. The slam dunk on this issue would be to get Murray to write a confirmation letter."

Bryan
They wanted Murray to know there was an 'institution' involved in the takeover. The club would not be in debt to Ticketus, but season ticket income would be lower. In effect, when the fans bought the ticket the money wouldn't go to the club.

The court was a draft letter, saying that Murray had been offered, and accepted 'Life Presidency' of the club.

The court was also shown an e-mail from Whyte, in which he said that the Ticketus request is 'pretty much' what he has discussed with Murray. Whyte goes on to say, "In conversations with Murray, I mentioned a third party would be providing a significant chunk of the funding."

The court was then shown a letter, signed by Whyte, saying that he had spoken to Murray about 3rd-party funding. Bryan's reply to Whyte, said, "The Chairman is happy with the letter. I'll let you know asap if we're in the clear."

Bryan
The agreement with Whyte took into account, the possibility of Rangers entering into an insolvency event. The Ticketus deal would have a major financial impact on Rangers, and it required board approval. Ticketus paid the season ticket money to Rangers, who lent it to Wavetower, who paid the bank debt. Paying the bank debt to Lloyds was a condition of providing the funds to Whyte. The total deal was £24m - £18m to pay Lloyds, £2m 'free cash' to the club, and the rest in VAT.

Donald Findlay QC (representing Whyte) began his cross-examination

Bryan
Octopus managed around £1b+ in funds in 2010, with about 120 employees. My job was to source Investment opportunities and then progress them into legal contracts. Octopus had a duty not to take unnecessary risks with their client's money. I was first approached about Rangers by Nigel Farr.

He was hoping to get a brokers fee, and he also introduced Phill Betts, who was an 'asset backed banker'. Betts arranged Whyte's first meeting at the Octopus office. I believe there where other gentlemen there, but I can't recall their names. Ticketus had 12 football clients, Manchester United among them. We worked with 6 English Premier league clubs, and some in Europe. Rangers were our only Scottish clients.

Findlay
A great number of people in football would know about Ticketus?

Bryan
Only 3-4 at each club. Other staff at football clubs might know about any deal with Ticketus, 100 or so?

Findlay
Apart from Whyte, is there anyone else you know in this courtroom?

Bryan
A solicitor for Octopus is in the court.

Findlay
I had noticed you kept looking over there. So, from that first meeting, there was the possibility of buying the shares?

Bryan
All avenues were open. I can't recall if the Lloyds debt was discussed at the first meeting. It may not have been mentioned until 2011.

The court was shown a Ticketus memo from October 2010, which mentions repayment of the bank debt. The deal being discussed at that point was £20m for 45% of season tickets in year one, 45% in year two and 35% in year 3. The memo notes, if they added the existing deal, Ticketus would control 61% of the club's season tickets in 2011-2012.

Bryan
Selling season tickets was sensitive. Fans might have staged a boycott. We were not hungry for publicity. We (Ticketus) wanted Murray to know about 3rd-party involvement to avoid embarrassment. We didn't want to embarrass the seller.

Findlay
Are you sticking with that?

Bryan
Yes.

Findlay
If you spend £500 on a season ticket, you might hope that the club is getting the benefit. But £50 is going to some fund in London.

Bryan
Ok, yes.

Findlay
The matter required secrecy?

Bryan
You could argue that.

That's pretty accurate, I was in Court that particular day.
 
So reading this, as we all know, Whyte got off scot free from defrauding Rangers and HMRC. Is there still a possibility he could do time for defrauding Ticketus, especially if he was paying back handers to get the deal done. Or was Ticketus also part of the mishandled court case that fell apart
 
So reading this, as we all know, Whyte got off scot free from defrauding Rangers and HMRC. Is there still a possibility he could do time for defrauding Ticketus, especially if he was paying back handers to get the deal done. Or was Ticketus also part of the mishandled court case that fell apart

A Blind Man can see that those to do with "Prosecutions", in this, Finest Wee Cuntry In The World, are no friends, of ours!
 
So reading this, as we all know, Whyte got off scot free from defrauding Rangers and HMRC. Is there still a possibility he could do time for defrauding Ticketus, especially if he was paying back handers to get the deal done. Or was Ticketus also part of the mishandled court case that fell apart

One of the things I’ve wondered about too - on the face of it there may be a straightforward case that Ticketus were defrauded. The Question of whether Ticketus were defrauded wasn’t pursued by the Crown in the prosecution though.

My guess is it wasn’t pursued as the earlier civil case Ticketus raised against Whyte may have prejudiced the position.

In that case an English Court granted decree against Whyte on the grounds he had made misrepresentations to Ticketus when applying for the finance by failing to declare relevant information (such as his director’s ban.)

It therefore covered similar ground, and it could be argued a Jury would be influenced by the outcome in the Civil case.

Whyte was put on the hook for personal liability to Ticketus as D&P successfully challenged Ticketus’s “security” over the tickets, meaning Whyte’s personal guarantee came into play.
 
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.
My point all along. Any "independent" administrator equals no Green
 
How whyte is still walking around is beyond beggars belief.

He should be in jail and cell mates with a 6'4 gay bear who's over 13 stone and really fit humping him 5 times daily.
 
There must surely has been someone at ticketus in on the act and working with whyte. Why else would they lend the money before he owned the club or were they also duped by a man that can barely string a complete sentence together
Phil Betts think his name was. Worked for ticketus but was part of Whytes mob. His name goes unnoticed but was surely in on it.
 
It’s always amazed me how fortunate that lady's front bottom is that he hasn’t bumped into an angry bear.

He encountered one only a few weeks ago in Corinthian in GLASGOW although was untouched due to the tight security in the place but told explicitly he was a dirty little rat out spending other people’s money before nervously scurrying away to another floor in the venue with his big baldy mate. I have this from a good source and yes it’s absolutely sickening he’s out there living it up with stolen cash and looks like he’s not got a care in the world and in the very city of the club he helped in shafting. Karma is a sweet thing and I look forward to the day Shyte gets his comeuppance.
 
COMPO BATTLE

Ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte to sue Crown and Police Scotland for £10m over ‘wrongful arrest’​


  • 21:09, 27 Jul 2022
  • Updated: 21:16, 27 Jul 2022
EX-Rangers supremo Craig Whyte is suing cops and prosecutors for £10million over ‘wrongful arrest’, we can reveal.
The businessman, 51, was nicked over an alleged fraudulent buyout of the Ibrox club in 2015 but was cleared in court two years later.
Craig Whyte is suing cops and prosecutors for £10million
1
Craig Whyte is suing cops and prosecutors for £10millionCredit: The Sun
Whyte’s legal team have now submitted an initial claim in the wake of huge public purse payouts to other Gers-linked figures like Charles Green.
He was waiting for other compo claims from the botched Rangers probe to be settled before launching his own £10million action, insiders say.
And bided his time as Charles Green got £6.4million, while administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark received a combined £24million.
In their cases, the Crown Office admitted they were wrongfully targeted during a “malicious prosecution”.
Advertisement

READ MORE IN SPORT​


Rangers hero looks unrecognisable as he's spotted with new star Ridvan Yilmaz

REMEMBER HIM?

Rangers hero looks unrecognisable as he's spotted with new star Ridvan Yilmaz​


Hibs chief praises Rangers saying 'no other club's done more for football'

GORD WILLING

Hibs chief praises Rangers saying 'no other club's done more for football'​


Mr Whyte — cleared of claims his 2011 club takeover was fraudulent — has now lodged a writ on similar grounds stating his wish to seek damages from the Crown and Police Scotland.
A legal source: “Whyte’s been biding his time and watching how other cases pan out.
The wheels are in motion and 12 months is permitted to progress the claim to the next level.
His team has always said Police Scotland and the Crown had nothing on him and like the others he should never have been arrested.
Advertisement



MOST READ IN SCOTTISH PREMIERSHIP​


Love Island's legendary baby task returns TONIGHT as villa wakes to screaming kids
OH BABY

Love Island's legendary baby task returns TONIGHT as villa wakes to screaming kids​


Love Island producers told me to wear thong bikini on camera but banned others
WRONG THONG

Love Island producers told me to wear thong bikini on camera but banned others​


Rangers hero says he's heard glowing reports from inside source on one new star
TOP CLASS

Rangers hero says he's heard glowing reports from inside source on one new star​


Crooked Scots funeral director told staff customers were dead & pocketed £130k
SICK SCAM

Crooked Scots funeral director told staff customers were dead & pocketed £130k​


“The only difference is Whyte went to trial where he was cleared of all charges.
“This doesn’t affect his right to claim compensation however. He believes he’s entitled to the same as Whitehouse and Clark.”
Mr Whyte was cleared by a jury in 2017 over two charges relating to his Ibrox takeover.
Duff and Phelps pair Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark, both 56, were appointed administrators when the company that ran Rangers hit a financial crisis in 2012. They were arrested in 2014, with charges later dropped.
Advertisement

In 2020, prosecutors admitted malice and lack of probable cause, and both men were awarded £10.5million. They also settled with cops over a wrongful arrest claim.
In a statement to the Scottish Parliament last year, Mr Wolffe apologised to the pair, saying they should not have been prosecuted.
Their colleague David Grier lost an £8.7million similar claim in January. He is appealing the decision.
Ex-Ibrox chief exec Mr Green, 69, also won damages after a claim against the former Lord Advocate.
Advertisement

He was arrested in September 2015 and charged with fraud over his buyout after crisis-hit Gers plunged into liquidation in 2012.
He appeared in court but the case against him and four others, including Rangers commercial boss Imran Ahmad, was abandoned.
Last year, outgoing Lord Advocate Mr Wolffe told Holyrood Mr Ahmad and Mr Green “shouldn’t have been prosecuted”.
We revealed Mr Ahmad is suing for £60million over raps related to the purchase of club assets.
Advertisement

Scots Tory MSP Russell Findlay branded it “scandalous” that no-one has been “held to account”.

MORE FROM THE SCOTTISH SUN​


B&M brings back retro 90s chocolate favourite and fans are loving it

SWEET OFFER

B&M brings back retro 90s chocolate favourite and fans are loving it​


I was on Love Island this year and hated what producers made us do, says Jay

FORCING IT

I was on Love Island this year and hated what producers made us do, says Jay​


The Crown Office wouldn’t comment during ongoing proceedings, but said: “We will support a judge-led inquiry in due course.”
Police said of Mr Whyte’s civil claim: “Should it be pursued it’ll be actively and fully defended.”
Keep up to date with ALL the latest news and transfers at the Scottish Sun football page
Advertisement

 
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.
 
A vipers nest if ever there was one. Needs a forensic accountant with the skills that brought Escobar down to get to the bottom of this sordid affair. I’m ashamed our name was brought anywhere near Whyte, Ticketus, Green, Ahmad and lastly but far from leastly, Mike Ashley.

Ticketus must have been in on the whole deal especially when Whyte at that stage did not technically own the club. I’m my company if I want to buy a propelling pencil that’s not on “the list” I need a Director to sign it off. Are we to believe that they just handed over £27m without absolute cast iron assurances?

Makes me sick thinking about it all.
 
The truth would be good but getting it off Whyte who does not know the meaning of the word would be tricky.
 
For me it's still a pertinent question as how Whyte secured the Ticketus loan before he had control of the club.
It also beats me how the police ballsed it up so spectacularly. It was an open and shut case of illegal financial assistance I.e. using the club's assets to purchase the club. A spectacularly amateurish investigation and set of prosecutions that the taxpayer is now having to pay for.
 
Very little gets made of the fact Gary Withey was found dead at his home, seemingly by his own hand.

The lawyer who got struck off for brokering Whyte’s fraudulent deal (with his firm having to pay £25m compo to oldco as a result) yet “no criminality” anywhere. Just tens of millions worth of claims. How odd.
 
For me another pertinent question is.

Who the fck are ticketus? They were created in 2012 just as it all happened.

What other clubs have done business with them? Ive never heard of any.

They are another cog in this murky wheel IMO
 
For me another pertinent question is.

Who the fck are ticketus? They were created in 2012 just as it all happened.

What other clubs have done business with them? Ive never heard of any.

They are another cog in this murky wheel IMO
Good point. Where did a company created such a short time before the events manage to find the £28m to lend to Whyte?
 
A vipers nest if ever there was one. Needs a forensic accountant with the skills that brought Escobar down to get to the bottom of this sordid affair. I’m ashamed our name was brought anywhere near Whyte, Ticketus, Green, Ahmad and lastly but far from leastly, Mike Ashley.

Ticketus must have been in on the whole deal especially when Whyte at that stage did not technically own the club. I’m my company if I want to buy a propelling pencil that’s not on “the list” I need a Director to sign it off. Are we to believe that they just handed over £27m without absolute cast iron assurances?

Makes me sick thinking about it all.
We used Ticketus in the past under Murray. Whyte's lawyer showed them proof of finance and ticketus released the money. Once the truth started to come out the lawyers had to pay the administrators £25 million.
 
The thing I don't understand about Ticketus and the Whyte/David Murray deal is:-

How can Ticketus provide a loan to Whyte secured against future season ticket sales when he had no authority within the club? This could only have been done with David Murray's signed security. It's like me taking a loan out secured against a strangers house. Doesn't happen.
They can loan whatever they want, they're not a bank. They will have taken it as a calculated risk, with a condition that of the club was not purchased the money would have to be returned.

They were essentially like a private credit investor. Unfortunately for them, their risk assessment was terrible based on 2 facts, 1 we had a huge tax case looming over us, 2 Whyte had no intention of not liquidating the company to get rid of the tax case
 
Will put the f*cking cherry on the b*starding cake if, after everyone else has had their pay out, that absolute cretin gets one too.
 
For me another pertinent question is.

Who the fck are ticketus? They were created in 2012 just as it all happened.

What other clubs have done business with them? Ive never heard of any.

They are another cog in this murky wheel IMO
Ticketus were formed in 2008 and its just shell company after shell company in their ownership structure
 
It's incredible that after all that happened to us, the perps are laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Back
Top