forlanssister

The very question Paul Murray posed in the BBC documentary.

I think you're missing the point altogether, the reason the AGM is not going ahead is not because Craig Whyte wants to give the shareholders more information but rather because he wants to keep them in the dark and most certainly doesn't want shareholders asking awkward questions in an open forum. It should be noted that although an AGM can't be called at present because Whyte has not met the conditions required to call one, he can at any time call an EGM. It should also be noted that MIH are dealing with HMRC regarding the big tax case as clearly stated in the Shareholders Circular if Whyte attempted to talk to HMRC he would be in breach of the purchase agreement and would leave himself open to having to cancel the debt owed to his RFC Group Ltd.

Not quite gold but perhaps a £1million investment in Rangers Youth Development Limited, a £1million that when you invest you know you'll never see again. I make it 3 years 8 months or thereabouts. Last minute to make an offer or last minute to make an offer public?, I'd hazard a guess at the latter. I concur that he left it way too late to attempt to galvanise the support and badly misjudged the strength of anti Murray (David) feeling and those who were in the fans eyes guilty by association. As to "Why?", it's pretty clear both from the interview at the beginning of this thread and the one given to the BBC that he simply didn't think anyone was stupid enough to take on the potential liability without an indemnity. There is no doubt that the Paul Murray "bid to inject £25m of new capital was the best one for Rangers there is also no doubt that Whyte's £1 was far, far better for LBG, MIH and David Murray hence where we are today. The old board were at the mercy of a dictator who controlled 80 odd % and was content to let the club and its' fans take a tanking as long as the press left him alone, now we don't even have a board (worthy of the name), don't hold board meetings( and possibly even an AGM),and produce unaudited accounts. We are not on speaking terms with the BBC not because of anything they have said about the club but because they embarrassed Craig Whyte. ( I'm quite happy of the BBC ban per se but I'm not naive as to the reason behind it). The two executive directors are suing simply because of the reckless and naive actions of Craig Whyte, nobody expected them to survive the change of ownership and nobody disputes Whyte's right to remove them but the manner of his doing so was at best amateurish and at worst negligent and has garnered both unnecessary publicity and unnecessary expenditure

Are you seriously suggesting that RFC made illegal payments to Paul Murray whilst he was a non-executive director of RFC ?

The club had spiralled out of control long before Paul Murray joined the board in September 2007, look at the running of the club from September 2007 till the sale to Whyte if you're going to judge Paul Murray. Paul Murray was a non-executive director of the club he received no financial remuneration from Rangers for that role. The only non-executive to receive payment for being a non-executive was John Greig who received the princely sum of £1250 in 2009. Any journalist worth their salt would be questioning why given LBG's prior relationship with Craig Whyte why they, their placements on the board nor David Murray never informed the other members of RFC's board about the fact of Craig Whyte's banning as a company director and also why the shareholders and PLUS Market were not informed. Any journalist worth their salt should be investigating the source of funding for Liberty Capital in the BVI and whether it comes from one of the half dozen or so LBG subsidiaries in the BVI. Any journalist worth their salt would be investigating whether Whyte is a willing Patsy brought on board to do what neither LBG nor David Murray could be seen to countenance and picking up a few bob for his troubles or just a naive chancer way,way,way out of his depth. Who in their right mind buys a house for £1 in the knowledge that it could well take 50 million times as much to fix it? The "bid" you refer to was not a "bid" it was an offer to recapitalise the club with £25m (fully underwritten) new money which would have resulted in David Murray not receiving so much as one penny and having his shareholding diluted to such an extent that he would have became almost irrelevant but he would still have had to face the music if the big tax case hit the fan now he can turn round and say, "wisnae me gov" likewise LBG got off the hook, do you really think that either Murray or LBG could have publicly countenanced placing us into administration or even worse liquidation? If Whyte had done as he said he would and put his money where his mouth is then we wouldn't be in the state we are just now facing court actions on a weekly basis.

If Carter-Ruck had advised him he had a case he'd sue the BBC in England, maybe Mr Whyte is having cold feet at the prospect of being cross-examined on oath in open court by some of the country's leading QC's, who knows what skeletons may then fall out of the cupboard. It is far easier for the BBC via their counsel to tarnish whatever reputation he has in open court than it is on air. I would imagine the "chap" from the Insolvency Service was perfectly aware of the ramifications of what he was saying and was cleared to do so not only by his bosses but by his departments legal advisers. As things stand at present the report into Whyte's banning for 7 years as a Company Director is covered by an "absolute exemption" which means it cannot be released via a Freedom of Information request, however that could very well change if he takes the BBC to court and they convince a Judge to release it. Of course if there's nothing in that report that could cause concern for Rangers shareholders, (and fans) creditors et al then Whyte could release it himself, and then we may discover the actual "technicality".

Perhaps we'll get the chance to ask him pertinent questions at the AGM, then again probably not.

I think Whyte is way out of his depth and will go as soon as is possible as long as he can get "his" money back. There are absolutely no examples in his business history of having turned around a business of this scale in fact is there any example of him having turned around any business at all ? He is only here because neither Murray nor LBG could countenance being at the helm and having to press the "A" button while Whyte will do it without compunction in fact he has no problem pressing the "L" button if it's in his financial interest to do so regardless of the consequences.

Indeed it is, too many seem to assume that both are one and the same when they are patently not. The crux may come in the shape of a partial victory in the tax case, if judgement goes against to the tune of £15-20m does he waive the 'loan and "invest" further monies to cover that or does he think "f*&K that I want 'my' £18m back"?

It matters if those who can remove the "dark cloud" will not invest in the club if Whyte is at the helm.

Do you mean investors who will: A) Invest with Whyte at the helm ? or B) Invest with the condition he gets to F*&K asap ?

Caveat to my original reply, I don't for one minute think Whyte will lose most of "his" £18m.

Sadly I think scenario E is the most likely outcome, and what a f*&king mess that will be!

It will become a weekly occurrence till the shit finally hits the fan (a rather poor metaphor I concede).

On the contrary I think it is his goal and there's bugger all anyone can do to stop him, this has always been the sum of the parts is greater than the whole deal. You can dress it up anyway you like but Whyte's total risk is £1.

Close Leasing now have a fixed charge which takes precedent over the floating charge. http://www.mediafire.com/?mazxgblc77gsch7

Pity we didn't sign Bocanegra and Goian a month earlier than we did.

Alas i think you're 100% correct. For such a super duper successful "billionaire" he seems to have made a few costly mistakes already during his short tenure as custodian.

Yes it wasn't shown despite being advertised last night. Maybe they feel severely pissed off.

What happened to Part Two scheduled for tonight ? Did STV take umbrage at Whyte doing them up like a kipper? Why did, " I have nothing to hide" turn down an invitation for an interview today from STV?

Agreed, this is a self inflicted wound something that Whyte seems adept at going by his performance so far.

It will be interesting to see exactly which points of the programme Whyte issues the libel writ for. I have my doubts about seeing him in the witness stand being cross-examined by one of country's top QC's.

It's on the BBC news channel at half past midnight.

I think that a Bank would have used the opportunity to deny that they resorted to "blackmail" if indeed they hadn't.

Must be getting old, remember all the brass plates outside my solicitors with names of the companies registered at that particular address.