forlanssister

No now it's a probabilty! (For Ergatrude )

That c*nt is just playing to his audience.

If I could see a positive or constructive option that would end this sorry episode I would gladly post it but I simply can't see one. I can assure you I don't post simply to cause alarm far from it but merely inject a dose of reality irrespective of it's "doom & gloom" potential, I could post stuff like "all in the garden is rosy" but what's the point there's enough of them already !

Pardon me for not being full of the joys of spring as I watch my club die a slow painful death.

I think HMRC will have a wee problem or two accepting anybody who acted for Whyte during the takeover and accompanied Whyte to a meeting HMRC while admitting not "being a tax expert" having anything to do with administration. The administration process will neither be quick, clean or painless those who think it just means a 10 point deduction and our debt vanishes into thin air are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Gets even more interesting because David Grier claims to be "Donald Muir's best pal".

What will he have claimed in the papers submitted to the court then ? He couldn't have included the big tax since that hasn't actually crystallised, so what debt could he have included?

Now I feel relaxed! A board of Craig Whyte and Andrew Ellis, if it wasn't so f*&king serious you'd have to laugh.

Ok show me an example where Craig Whyte has successfully used administration and not ended up going down the road of liquidation ? One will suffice.

Like he's never done that before ?

Take a look at Traynors blog today especially the part on David Grier. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/ Low and behold http://www.mcr.uk.com/person.html?id=43 how many David Griers are there out there.

As much as I agree with the sentiment I fear it won't happen.

I don't need telling that, though Craig Whyte may.

His modus operandi is not turning round businesses but liquidating them. We certainly have the potential to be liquidated.

It's beyond doubt that Whyte is an out and out liar.

Yet another Government Agency delivers a damning indictment.

Dave King did NOT resign he was removed, though I think he will still technically be a director for a short period.

Back page tomorrows Record. http://twitpic.com/8j3zfy

I have a copy of the judgement it's 39 pages long and is a pretty damning indictment of Craig Whyte and the way he does business. The Sheriff disregards (the perjury stuff the BBC were harping on about last week ) the ban from being a company Director as not relative to the One Stop v Tixway case, that's the only saving grace for Whyte in the entire 39 pages.

No it's definitely a forced removal.

More bad news for Mr Whyte to break over the weekend

Perhaps he genuinely lacks the £90k it would've taken to settle the case....

If he won't tell the truth in court little chance of him being truthful with the fans.

'Wholly unreliable' Rangers owner Craig Whyte loses roofing court case Craig Whyte said he had not agreed to pay the invoices Continue reading the main story Related Stories Gers Whyte may have lied to court Shares in Rangers are suspended Whyte denies unpaid castle bill Rangers owner Craig Whyte has been told to pay a disputed bill of £86,127 to a roofing firm after a sheriff described his evidence as "wholly unreliable". One Stop Roofing Supplies claimed Mr Whyte's company Tixway UK had breached an agreement to pay for goods bought by another company, *Snowcast UK. Mr Whyte, 40, disputed this and said he was a creditor of Snowcast. In a written ruling, Sheriff Nigel Ross stated: "I reject the evidence of Mr Whyte as wholly unreliable." The case centred on the business relationship between Mr Whyte, Chris Keating - who owned Snowcast UK before it folded - and One Stop Roofing Supplies, which is run by Robert Jenkins. During evidence in December, Mr Whyte told the court he was introduced to Mr Jenkins in April 2008 through friend and businessman Mr Keating. The court was told Mr Whyte helped Mr Keating's own business by lending money when it was required. It was said that Mr Keating regularly bought supplies from the roofing firm. Mr Whyte told the court the only orders made by him, and that he was invoiced for by One Stop Roofing, were for the repairs he was carrying out at Castle Grant in Granton on Spey. Castle Grant He said he did not agree for invoices for Mr Keating's business to be sent to him or paid by him. Continue reading the main story â?? Start Quote His (Craig Whyte) evidence is contradicted by virtually every other piece of evidenceâ? Sheriff Nigel Ross The court also heard that Mr Whyte became the director of Tixway after serving a seven-year disqualification from being a company director. Asked why he was banned, Mr Whyte said he could not remember as it was some time ago. He also said he did not want to say in open court and get it wrong. In his ruling on the case, Sheriff Ross stated: "I accept the evidence led by the pursuer (One Stop Roofing) as credible and reliable, and supported by the available documentation. "I reject the evidence of Mr Whyte as wholly unreliable. "It is not possible to ascertain whether he is not telling the truth or is simply unable to recollect the true position, and has convinced himself that this arrangement is something that he would not have entered into. "Either way, his evidence is contradicted by virtually every other piece of evidence." 'Legal liability' Sheriff Ross found that Mr Whyte's firm Tixway had "offered its own credit rating to allow cover for the supply of large volumes of materials to Snowcast". He said this was "subject to a high degree of control by the defender over Snowcast and an understanding between the defender (Tixway) and Snowcast that Snowcast would make payment for those materials". Sheriff Ross concluded: "As a matter of legal liability, however, the defender remains the principal obligant. "There is no dispute as to the sum outstanding, nor that it was properly incurred, and I accept the total brought out by the pursuer's figures." A hearing will be fixed for a later date for both parties to discuss expenses arising from the case. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16984191

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6818968/Greedy-accountant-stole-110000-from-employer-after-pay-dispute.html