Grantly Group ââ?¬â?? insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts

[Zappa 0]

You have to presume that much of his wealth is now off-shore or in the States, but it's not particularly reassuring that there are a lot of administrative issues with his UK companies as highlighted by Boss, and you are finding similar things when doing a credit check.

Add all that to the fact that he's shot his mouth off about ripping seats out to create standing areas at Ibrox when standing areas aren't even permitted to be used in SPL matches & this guy is looking like a worrying prospect.

[alexscottislegend 2,378]

If you Google 'Graham Duffy' - Grantly you will find the link at the top of the list; the company seems to be the Florida-based property company, not the U.K. ones listed in the RM article. Wherever that makes any difference or not, I'll leave that to the likes of Bluedell, who are more qualified than most of on here to judge.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Add all that to the fact that he's shot his mouth off about ripping seats out to create standing areas at Ibrox when standing areas aren't even permitted to be used in SPL matches & this guy is looking like a worrying prospect.

 

Yeah. However saying that it doesn't necessarily mean that he should be ruled out.

 

Credit checks like MF has carried out don't necessarily give the full picture. There could be some massive backing offshore that the credit check companies don't see. However it certainly is indicitive of problems and questions would need to be answered (and some annual return forms completed) before he should be allowed to take this much further.

 

The standing area comments do suggest that he hasn't looked at the whole thing that seriously though and that is as concerning.

[Bluedell 5,679]

If you Google 'Graham Duffy' - Grantly you will find the link at the top of the list; the company seems to be the Florida-based property company, not the U.K. ones listed in the RM article. Wherever that makes any difference or not, I'll leave that to the likes of Bluedell, who are more qualified than most of on here to judge.

 

It can make a huge difference. It can be very difficult/impossible to get the full picture. It's relatively easy for companies to hide some of their wealth in places like Bermuda, where there is no requirement to produce or file accounts.

[craig 5,199]

It can make a huge difference. It can be very difficult/impossible to get the full picture. It's relatively easy for companies to hide some of their wealth in places like Bermuda, where there is no requirement to produce or file accounts.

 

Hey pal, less of the "Bermuda" statements

 

Not strictly true regarding Bermuda, it depends on the ownership type of the company (individual, private entity, public entity, Trust etc). However, you did only use it as an example and there are certainly other jurisdictions where no financials need be completed and/or published.

 

Getting the full picture for many high net worth individuals is nigh on impossible these days. They truly have become globalised in the sense that they will make a lot of their money in one jurisdiction but their wealth will reside in another, mostly for tax reasons.

 

Pat Rafter, for instance, is a resident of Bermuda - how much of his wealth was accumulated here ? Why would he be a resident of Bermuda and not his homeland of Australia ? Zero and tax are the answers that spring to my mind.

 

It is concerning that his UK companies have missed Co's House deadlines, I will agree to that. Someone should be paying more heed to these things. But if they are shell companies then he may just have a laissez faire approach to them. It would be as interesting to me to know what the history of his other income generating units is.

 

The "standing supporters" comment is also concerning but it could be that he was really just providing an off-the-cuff comment without having looked into the plausibility of that. Clyde were reporting at the weekend that they had spent 100k on due diligence which is a lot of money and mean they are "serious" - BD, with an entity the size of Rangers you and I both know that 100k of due diligence will actually not get you that far. It is plausible that this "plan" is very much in its infancy and that much of the work is still to be done, including what can and cannot be done in relation to stadium development.

 

I think it was Zappa that said it was a worry that they would get rid of the bank debt and not have that invaluable facility to fall back on (sorry if it wasnt you Zappa). That is not necessarily the case. Underwriting the debt means they are guaranteeing it - that underwriting of the debt could quite easily also be AUGMENTED by the bank's credit facility, although admittedly it is unlikely to be at the current level.

[rbr 1,270]

It can make a huge difference. It can be very difficult/impossible to get the full picture. It's relatively easy for companies to hide some of their wealth in places like Bermuda, where there is no requirement to produce or file accounts.

 

The very fact a consortium, if in fact that is what is behind this , decided to choose this guy as the face of Revolution worries me , I wouldn't give him any of my hard earned , perception and image is everything and this guy looks like a del boy

 

 

 

Craig you mentioned that they had spent or rather were reported to have spent �£100K on due diligence , now if that is true then surely Murray would be aware of this small fact , I may not be the brightest at this but surely you need approach the business you want to buy if you are carrying this out

Edited November 30, 2009 by rbr

[maineflyer 0]

I thought you were withdrawing until your genius was proved to us all , your like a wee midge , a pest that needs squashing

 

He's the only poster I've ever had on an ignore list but at least I know I'll never have to look at another of his ridiculous posts again. Thankfully.

[elderslieblue 0]

Boss.........I take it from the end of the opening post you are implying that the RST have been "hanging their hat" ie talking to this guy ?

 

As far as I understand, they haven't.

 

Thanks for the info in the article though. I did learn a lot from the rest of the article.

[rbr 1,270]

He's the only poster I've ever had on an ignore list but at least I know I'll never have to look at another of his ridiculous posts again. Thankfully.

 

I have never known on any site someone who posts so much yet contributes so little , please tell me he will not be able to reappear , can we get the isp police to check it out

[craig 5,199]

Craig you mentioned that they had spent or rather were reported to have spent �£100K on due diligence , now if that is true then surely Murray would be aware of this small fact , I may not be the brightest at this but surely you need approach the business you want to buy if you are carrying this out

 

Good question.

 

The proper protocols, as far as I am aware, is that an interested party will notify their interest in the business and will enter into a non-disclosure agreement (effectively a confidentiality agreement) and, once signed off (which needs to be done by both interested party and current owner(s) ) they will be allowed to enter into their due diligence.

 

The confidentiality wouldn't necessarily preclude the interested party from declaring their interest but it will most definitely prevent them from making public any information that they obtain during the due diligence process.

 

SDM would most definitely be aware of this - assuming of course, that the "100k of due diligence" is from bona fide due diligence and not from Duffy's own team working out strategic plans etc prior to going to SDM/Lloyds/Rangers to request proper due diligence.