forlanssister

I think it's because Mr Whyte considers the club to be his and his alone and the sooner he rids himself of the irritation of 26,000 odd shareholders the better.

Don't think it's anything resembling a Base or Libor + X%, more they deeply discount the value of tickets they "buy" and charge full whack come settlement time.

As far as I'm aware yes, and I sincerely hope he does.

He owns 5.33%, IIRC his holding via MSL was just under 5% but when MSL was untangled at the time of the takeover his total percentage increased, it was a no cost transaction.

Yes. Members' power to require directors to call general meetings (sec303 - sec304) The directors must call a general meeting if so requested by the holders of 10% of the voting shares (or 10% of the voting rights if no shares). If at least 12 months have elapsed since the last general meeting called under this section, the request may be made by 5%. The request for the meeting must state the general nature of the business to be dealt with and may include the text of a resolution to be moved at the meeting (provided the resolution would not be ineffective (e.g. under the Act or because contrary to the company's articles, etc., and provided it is not defamatory, frivolous or vexatious). If the request is properly made, the directors must within 21 days call the meeting for a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice calling the meeting. If the request included a proposed resolution, that must be included in the notice, which will then be part of the business that can be conducted at the meeting. (If it is a special resolution, the notice of the meeting must say so, in accordance with sec283, above.)

They should publicly call his bluff by asking for him to call an EGM as there is no legal impediment to prevent him doing so.

If you seriously think that Johnston, Murray (Paul), McClelland et al do not fully understand what it means to be a Ranger then you're woefully deluded.

As above .

Tis always best to dispense with the evidence before delivering the verdict

There's none so deaf as those who will not hear!

Perhaps the possibility that the Ticketus monies somehow ended up in the Groups bank account rather than the clubs?

It would be interesting at Fridays press conference if a journalist were to inquire "Alastair do you 100% trust Craig Whyte?".

Whyte doesn't actually deny using the monies from Ticketus to pay off Lloyds in that statement.

But I'm sure the QC's will assist his recollection of the facts....

The BBC didn't have documents as such as you allude to what they had was a transcript of a court case where a witness stated that he was acting as a director of a company called Re-Tex whilst he was banned from doing so. bmck's post pretty much covers why Whyte won't sue, he simply cannot leave himself open to being questioned by some of the country's leading QC's whilst on oath.

It is a pretty rare action to take, here's the judgement, my interpretation (though I stand to be corrected) it means technically that the form never existed!

While I would agree that he certainly wants the fans to think he's accusing them of lying I don't think he goes quite that far but I just may be being to kind to Mr Whyte.... I don't in the slightest doubt your opinion.

It's just semantics. He could technically argue that it's not the supporters money since the money came from Ticketus, the fact that it's supporters money finding it's way to Ticketus is a redundant point to him. As for the VAT he could technically argue if there has been no actual demand specifically for £5m then he hasn't avoided a £5m VAT payment. Then why no Carter Ruck threats?

Raises more questions than it answers, interestingly no threat to sue for the Record, Traynor, Jackson or Murray for libel.

That isn't exactly clear because that M05 was stricken from the record. As far as I'm aware it wasn't replaced so there is no evidence of what if any security Ticketsus hold over the club/Group/Liberty Capital whatever.

Apologies for the source, but this is from the MGO5 that the court subsequently struck from the records.

Of course it would be, Whyte couldn't possibly be in the position to deliver till he had actual physical control of the process. It's a quite remarkable bit of business by Whyte (which in a perverse way I grudgingly admire) buy the Rangers for a total sum of £1 of your own cash and use the clubs (ergo the fans) money to satisfy LBG. Indeed it is.

I would imagine because they think they have good reason too. Your Ticketus question doesn't stack up because we already know Paul Murray has "knowledge" of an arrangement with Ticketus re the Jelavic deal.

So you're puzzled that HMRC are investigating a deal set up by Craig Whyte in which he does a deal to sell an asset he does not (at the time) own and you don't think HMRC should question the office bearers ( at the time) of the company that actually did own the asset ?

Correct, but equally it may well mean never.