Rangers owner Craig Whyte accused over 'unreliable' evidence in court battle.

[Bluedell 6,089]

The issue is not about his disqualification per se, it's the fact that he said he couldn't remember why he had been disqualified. If he had taken your position he or his lawyer could have argued that it wasn't relevant.

 

As far as I can see The Record have simply reported the facts of what was said in court as have STV http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/294269-sheriff-will-decide-if-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-has-to-pay-roofing-firm-90000/.

 

Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions.

 

The impression I have is of someone who engages the services of professional advisers or suppliers for goods or services (pensions advice, tax advice) and then trys to find any excuse not to pay for them.

 

Thanks. The STV article explains it better. What he is actually saying is that he can't remember the exact legal reason, which is fair enough. He obviously knows the rough reason but there will have been some fficial notification and it's not unreasonable for him not to remember the exact phrases and it's just a way for him to escape giving details, but he's entitled to want to give the exact reasons given if he wants.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Let me ask you something BH do pay every time someone asks you for money willy nilly without checking if they are actually due any money. If your answer is no and you do check what happens when you think you shouldn't pay the invoice, do you just say oh well for a quite life I'll just pay.

 

No I certainly do not. I argue the toss if I think there is an issue and I have a legitimate case. But when the dispute (if any) is settled and I am due to pay an agreed amount, I pay. I have never been sued in court for a debt that I knew I had to pay as has happened more than once already under Mr Whyte's reign at Ibrox.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I disagree. If we knew back then the full truth about his past not a single fan would have supported his takeover.

 

Fans should have trusted the Independent Directors Group and made their feelings known at the time.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

he appears to have no money at all.

 

That is more or less my understanding. I am advised that he borrowed the money that he put into Wavetower to do the deal in the first place.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

And if you still think their wrong have got some secret place you go to that sorts it out because if you have let me know.

 

No GA, I haven't, but most sensible people can sort out their disputes before they get to court. On the other hand I have sued people in court half a dozen or so times and in my experience they were just people who didn't want to pay their debts, in other words they weren't really genuine disputes. That certainly seemed to be the case with the pensions and tax advice bills that Mr Whyte agreed to pay once Rangers had been taken to court.. My point is that he shouldn't have let it get that far unless there was a genuine issue that couldn't be resolved by discussion and in those two cases at least there didn't appear to be a genuine issue.

[craig 5,199]

Fans should have trusted the Independent Directors Group and made their feelings known at the time.

 

Whether we like it or not though.... the fans had absolutely no bearing on who the club was sold to.

 

SDM rarely listened to the fans as it was, so I am not even close to being convinced that SDM gave a shit about who the club was sold to latterly.

 

We could have made our feelings known, but what difference would that have made ?

[craig 5,199]

No I certainly do not. I argue the toss if I think there is an issue and I have a legitimate case. But when the dispute (if any) is settled and I am due to pay an agreed amount, I pay. I have never been sued in court for a debt that I knew I had to pay as has happened more than once already under Mr Whyte's reign at Ibrox.

 

Dont disagree with you.... but there are also companies and individuals out there who could very well be looking for their "15 minutes of fame". What would normally be considered a "lets thrash this out" scenario could be a "It's Craig Whyte, so lets get our name in the paper".

 

Not saying that is the case, but there is certainly a chance of that.

[craig 5,199]

That is more or less my understanding. I am advised that he borrowed the money that he put into Wavetower to do the deal in the first place.

 

Seems like I am bashing you this evening BH.... that is definitely not the intention, hope you understand that

 

Maybe I just dont understand financing procedures - but I have always thought that in order to borrow money (certainly from reputable financial institutions) that you had to, somewhere, have the capital to support the borrowings.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Dont disagree with you.... but there are also companies and individuals out there who could very well be looking for their "15 minutes of fame". What would normally be considered a "lets thrash this out" scenario could be a "It's Craig Whyte, so lets get our name in the paper".

 

Not saying that is the case, but there is certainly a chance of that.

 

I can't see a company going to the expense of a court case where they may or may not be awarded costs just for the publicity. If the debts were paid, there would be no court case.

[craig 5,199]

I can't see a company going to the expense of a court case where they may or may not be awarded costs just for the publicity. If the debts were paid, there would be no court case.

 

Assuming, of course, said debts are legitimate and reasonably charged for the required services rendered.