stewarty

Agreed. Ruling nothing out or in.

Seems very likely this fakes character is either Whyte or a close associate. The desperation in this is quite amusing though.

My feeling is that DK is working in the background to secure enough of a share to at least get onto the board. Hopefully that will give us some stability. Also suspect we'll see moves once the pinsent masons report is announced, so might even be next week.

Certainly very interesting. Wonder if Mark Daly will make a comment?

I believe they were, but the questions being asked are not of the conduct of Deloitte. The investigation is not a legal one, so raiding for evidence was never the intention. And it's far from meaningless. See my post yesterday on why it had to happen.

Just to be clear, this is an external examination. Carried out by Pinsent Masons, with support from Deloitte, and overseen by an eminent QC. An evidence based report with conclusions as to the relationship between Green and Whyte, should e enough unless it states that serious questions remain outstanding. It'll be that scenario that will see others decide to have a look for themselves.

Agreed. See my post from yesterday for my thoughts on the matter.

What's the significance? We've know for some time that they are one of the original investors. The placing letter only seems to confirm what we already know unless I'm not understanding it. Like I say, seems to me that the issue is regarding the change from sevco 5088 to sevco Scotland, and Whyte's claim that this was fraudulent. These documents don't help us understand tag any further. What would though, are documents identified that look at the final deal out together by D&P and Green's consortium. Something I'd hope this independent examination can get to the bottom of.

From a quick scan they are placings for Investment in sevco 5088. But as he claims, green switched things to sevco Scotland to isolate Whyte and remove him from the deal. All these documents do is give some interesting info but they are not exactly damaging unless it can all be out into context.

Possibly. But if we assume that Green and Ahmad cooperate fully with the investigation, including the cooperation of their advisors, then I think the substance of what has happened should be easy to piece together for a forensic investigator. I cannot imagine D&P failing to cooperate either. The question of CW's involvement of the inquiry will be a curtesy as much as anything, so that the investigation can be as full as possible. But the likelihood they want any real scrutiny I'd fancy is remote. Hence why they are happy to leak so much online. What I forsee happening is the club being able to point to this report and conclusions and then say to the likes of the stock exchange, our investors and shareholders, sponsors, regulators and supporters: here are the facts as identified and verified by the independent QC. If anyone wants to challenge these facts then they need to provide solid evidence rather than heresay. That might not stop an increasingly desperate Whyte, but it should allow things to be more easily dismissed. Especially if the club starts defending itself legally, rather than allowing the current madness to continue.

I don't think this is Deloitte investigating themselves. They are doing some forensic investigation for sure, but that is being overseen by Pinsent Masons and by an independent QC. The Harper MacLeod role in the SPL commission was different. We were told they were low-level paper gatherers when it actually turned out that their partner was heading up the investigation and arguing the case against us. But I take your poiont about us not being treated fairly. However, by structuring the process like it has been, there are sufficient checks and balances in place to adequately defend the process against accusations of partiality. Hence why I say, if the SFA want to question the outcome, it will be on their own coin - and I doubt even they will be keen to fork out a 6 or 7 figure sum like we have.

Firstly Steve, this wasn't an internal review. It was an external review independently overseen by a QC. Secondly, we await official confirmation of the outcome but I'd wager this could turn out to be the best 6 figure sum the club has paid out in a while, on the assumption adamski's information is correct. If the SFA want to conduct their own review then they can go ahead, but we've seen how much it cost us, so it will likely be similar for them, so I doubt they'll go anywhere near it unless serious questions remain. I've said already that this was a necessary process to go through. I reckon the 7 figure sum quoted by some is part of the hyperbole surrounding the boardroom shenanigans. But as I've also said, once this report is public, stand by for the real powerplays. Who will step up and play?

Still think all of the leaks and stories coming out just now are posturing. The real powerplays will be made once the investigation is complete and findings are published. Regardless of whether you are a fan of Green or otherwise, lets all take sides with the club first and foremost. Shareholders will come and go, the club will remain. [insert Bill Struth quote]

@mister_bee_

There's been a raging debate on twitter in the past day or so regarding the current investigation commissioned by the Rangers Board into the allegations made by Craig Whyte and his connection with Charles Green. Writing on ESPN, John DC Gow explained his view that the commission was ill-advised, and only invites negative attention. He argues it also negates the Board's responsibility to protect the club. I can understand this viewpoint to an extent, goodness knows we've been through a lot, but I disagree for a number of reasons. Despite my barrage of tweets in John's direction, twitter is perhaps not the easiest medium to communicate why this is wrong, so here goes.... Given the threatened legal action, the various leaks by Whyte and the ongoing press coverage that has ensued, there is at the very least a case to be answered about whether the transfer of oldco assets to Sevco Scotland was legitimate. Various guarantees were also provided to the SFA that Green's group of investors had no other connections to Whyte, hence why Stewart Regan said yesterday that the allegations were "very serious". The investigation commissioned by the Board is attempting to clear up this mess once and for all. Until this is done, we cannot move forward. Its likely that Whyte will continue in his desperate attempts to sling mud at all and sundry; there is no evidence to suggest that he would stop doing so. I've speculated before about Whyte's motives but its clear he has no regard for the consequences of his actions. He is also a proven liar. But just because Whyte has been proven a liar before, doesn't mean it is also the case in this instance. For every piece of audio Whyte has released, we have a counter-argument from Green and others. Green is not normally short for words but his interview with STV had him floundering. His ego didn't help either. With his inclination towards speaking in outlandish terms, coupled with the ongoing Boardroom powerplays, its no wonder the Board was not prepared to accept Green's word at face value. An independent and objective review of all available evidence was necessary. This type of thing happens every day in business. As an Internal Auditor, I've been involved in carrying out such reviews myself, where there is a need for an organisation to seek an independent review of allegations of fraud or impropriety. But lets be clear here, this isn't an abrogation of duty. Given the sheer complexity of links and allegations, not to mention the links that current Board members and investors have with Whyte and Green, the Board simply is not able to objectively review the information available to it. Unless a forensic review is undertaken, it simply would not be able to say it had taken all reasonable steps to investigate these allegations. Furthermore, Rangers is a public company which is listed on AIM. With that come a number of responsibilities. These are not negotiable, and are a requirement of a company's continued registration. Of the many regulations, which you can read here, the principles of disclosure are noted on page 5, the second paragraph of which reads: "An AIM company must take reasonable care to ensure that any information it notifies is not misleading, false or deceptive and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information." All publicly listed companies must make disclosures to the market about any material information which could affect shareholders. Negative publicity, a potential legal claim and the likelihood of an regulatory interventions from the AIM or the SFA all compound to a situation that simply has to be resolved one way or the other for the company to continue its listing. It is very likely that the Board will be having a lot of concerned communications with those regulatory bodies to ask what is going on. Unless the Board can demonstrate that it is taking appropriate steps of its own accord, AIM might well impose sanctions. The SFA might well commission its own review in order to ascertain whether Green has lied to them. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not get involved in another SFA commission. Also, it won’t be too long before Rangers will be carrying out their annual audit. A key risk area for an external auditor is to consider whether a company is a going concern. Whilst Whyte's allegations on the sale of assets to Sevco Scotland continue, will the club's auditor be happy to say that the club is a going concern? What evidence will be available to them to make that assessment? Can you see where I'm going with this? We also need to consider the effect that such damaging allegations and publicity have on the club's ability to market itself and to attract new investment and sponsors. As a sponsor, would you be happy to be associated with a football club that is unable to satisfactorily deal with these matters? I accept it is frustrating seeing the club forking out such a very high amount of money on this investigation. Especially given that we suspect it will not identify any further damaging information. But the value of this happening is our ability to put all of this stuff to bed. Only once this is done, can we say with confidence that Whyte is "at it". We suspect it, but so far cannot prove it conclusively. Even if further information does come out, as damaging as that may or may not be, it simply has to come out, and come out now. We cannot sweep this under the carpet, we must deal with it head on, warts and all.

Welcome aboard Patnabear!

United really are a dishonest and scummy club with that prick Thompson in charge.

So Ahmad recorded his conversation, most likely without Murray's knowledge, and has now passed it to a 3rd party (the sun). Again, most likely without Murray's knowledge. Murray has a case to pursue him for that, methinks.

We shall need to wait and see what BDO say about that tbh.

Lifted from FF, but underlines my point I think. 2013-05-17 â?? Private Eye No. 1340 THE affairs of Worthington Group appear ever more entangled with Craig Whyte and his twice bankrupt partner Aidan Earley. The story so far... Worthington has almost £3m from a group pension fund locked up in the Rangers collapse as a result of a loan that was made before any security was provided by the then Whyte-controlled club. Whyte and Earley's brother had major share stakes in Worthington ahead of the loan. The pension fund is now fighting with the taxman and Rangers' liquidators for the return of its money in a civil action against Whyte's former lawyers, Collyer Bristow. Worthington has provided £250,000 to help finance to a new Whyte venture, Law Financial, which claims it owns a stake in the new Rangers and threatens litigation. Now read on... Last November, Worthington raised £600,000 through a share and convertible loan stock issue. In January, a debenture was issued to secure the £475,000 loan stock. That charge was issued to a new company, Renatus Capital. The only listed director and shareholder of Renatus is Sherri Ellison. She was formerly a director or company secretary of a series of Whyte or Earley companies. The holders of the loan stock could on conversion become the largest Worthington shareholder; they also have a first charge on the Worthington assets. Presumably that £475,000 provided to Worthington by Renatus or associates has helped fund the £250,000 Worthington has invested in Law Financial.

So Hearts should be treated any differently to us should it come to it? Nah, sorry Archie. Not buying that for a moment. The sought to stick the knife in our backs along with the rest of the SPL. That ship has sailed.

Cheers guys. I'm off to fight some zombies to take my mind off things.

Making sense of the stramash that is Rangers' corporate affairs over the last few years is enough to make any sane observer turn to drink - there are so many strands in this ever evolving and relentless saga. I'm not going to pretend that I am able to explain everything but I spotted a couple of things in the past day or two that got me wondering. A couple of months ago Ticketus won a court action against Craig Whyte in relation to the advance loan of future season ticket revenues that he subsequently used to pay the club's debt to Lloyds Banking Group. The court agreed with Ticketus that Whyte lied in his Directors disclosure, which was a requirement of the deal - namely that he did not disclose that he had previously been struck off as a Director. The judge noted evidence presented which showed that Whyte's own solicitor and pointed this question out to Whyte as being one of interest to him. In the judge's summary, he essentially called out Whyte for having a flimsy defence with little legal merit. As a result, Whyte was ordered to repay some £17m in funding to Ticketus, which related to the personal guarantees he provided. The case didn't even make it to trial, such was the damning nature of the evidence. This is par for the course with Whyte though, as even a quick check of his recent court battles will show. A few weeks later we have some recordings released by Whyte of conversations he held with Charles Green in the acquisiton of the oldco assets. These clips were short and didn't reveal the full extent of the conversations held. This was done to provide maximum damage to Green's credibility. We then find out shortly afterwards that Whyte had established a company around February/March, for which he sold around a quarter of its shares to Worthington Group. Laughably, part of this deal was the book and film rights for Whyte's story. In return, Worthington Group agreed to fund Whyte's supposed court action against Green for the wrongful sale of Ranger's assets to Sevco Scotland/Sevco 5088. Today we find out that Ticketus have petitioned the High Court in the British Virgin Islands to liquidate Whyte's company Liberty Capital, in an attempt to recover the £17m they are owed. This is the same Liberty Capital who also have a share of the Worthington Group. Essentially Whyte and is cohorts have a say in all of these companies. We also see the quite obvious release of stacks of email conversations and audio clips by Whyte to an anonymous blogger, Charlotte Fakes. Again, this is designed to create maximum damage to the key players in Whyte's saga. Possibly to try and get a pay off. But when we join all of these dots together what do we get apart from a sore head? In my view we have a blatant attempt by Whyte to create as much distance as possible between him and the money he owes. The longer he can string this along, the longer he attempts to evade what must surely be a potential jail sentence. This was further underlined with a story in the past couple of days about a court being unable to cite Whyte as a witness for a case he has brought against some people he claims stole items from his Castle Grant home. Essentially Craig Whyte has no money. Every deal he seems to put together, from the Ticketus deal, to the Worthington Group's funding of his court case, is an attempt to get other people to fund his scheming. Its been said many times but quite why any newspaper takes any information from this pyscopath I have no idea. Why the use of the word psycopath? Well, its someone who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. There are many more dots that could be joined together. I may be wrong on some or all counts, but the quicker the long arm of the law catches up with Craig Thomas Whyte, the quicker we can begin to sort out this sorry mess.

This Charlotte Fakeover chap now tweeting: "I have 1000's of items to review, should the task be too large, I shall consider a wikileaks type dump." Seems more and more obvious that he's been given a dump of documents from Whyte. Question is, how many are genuine?

Thought he makes a lot of very pertinent observations though.