David Grier claims Whyte withheld takeover information

[forlanssister 3,114]

I see you got your mind made up then.

 

I did consider blaming the BBC and the rest of the Timmy mhedia......but considering he damned himself with his own words I'll leave the afore mentioned to your good self it's a card you play oh so well.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Was there not a payment due to Ticketus for circa £9m at some point over the summer last year???

 

It's possible that Grier knew there was A deal with Ticketus in place, but maybe didn't know all the details ie. the full amount and what it was originally for. An invoice for £9m to cover initial working capital sounds pretty easy to explain to me.....

 

No, if you look at the email they want the invoice back dated till May 9 that was the original £24m 3 season deal the £9m you mention was the second Whyte-Ticketus deal where he was supposed to make a £6m repayment but ended up borrowing another £9m extending for a season repaying £6m and leaving the Ticketus debt at the £27m which they seek to recover

[der Berliner 3,744]

I did consider blaming the BBC and the rest of the Timmy mhedia......but considering he damned himself with his own words I'll leave the afore mentioned to your good self it's a card you play oh so well.

 

It is kind of strange tactics by you here. You throw shyte at Grier and D&P and whatnot on the basis of e.g. BBC-presented half-truths, assume the rest and if someone points out that half-truths are just that and your assumption may (as in: may) be wrong and there could be a simple enough explanation, that someone is marked the "head-in-sand-and-all-will-be-fine" fellow. As I said, it looks like you made your mind up and I would reckon that nothing D&P say or do will change your opinion. They are tainted and so be it. It does, of course, suit your general doom-and-gloom attitude quite well ... which is, BTW, as you may agree, no insult.

 

Just for the record - and I said that quite often - I'm hardly convinced by the work of the administrators. But at the same time, hardly anyone knows how their work is actually done, what they do 24/7. I for one do assume that with each letter they write and each person they speak to, they will have to cover their backs twice over, so no shame will come to their name. That is legal shame, btw, not that common bile spouted at them where-ever an admin has to work.

And while we are at it, while people kindly assume that the BBC legal team checked all of Daly's finding twice before setting the heather on fire, do people really think that chaps like Grier with years of experience in that very business would stumble blindly over the sham Whyte conducted? And then putting his name and that of his company at risk again when appearing on TV?

 

Anyway, we will find out soon enough. Some will perhaps dance a jig if theiy are correct in their assumptions, I will not. For at the end, my club suffers and there is no joy to be had here either way.

[forlanssister 3,114]

It is kind of strange tactics by you here. You throw shyte at Grier and D&P and whatnot on the basis of e.g. BBC-presented half-truths, assume the rest and if someone points out that half-truths are just that and your assumption may (as in: may) be wrong and there could be a simple enough explanation, that someone is marked the "head-in-sand-and-all-will-be-fine" fellow. As I said, it looks like you made your mind up and I would reckon that nothing D&P say or do will change your opinion. They are tainted and so be it. It does, of course, suit your general doom-and-gloom attitude quite well ... which is, BTW, as you may agree, no insult.

 

Pray tell just what "shyte" am I throwing at Grier?

 

Just for the record - and I said that quite often - I'm hardly convinced by the work of the administrators. But at the same time, hardly anyone knows how their work is actually done, what they do 24/7. I for one do assume that with each letter they write and each person they speak to, they will have to cover their backs twice over, so no shame will come to their name. That is legal shame, btw, not that common bile spouted at them where-ever an admin has to work.

And while we are at it, while people kindly assume that the BBC legal team checked all of Daly's finding twice before setting the heather on fire, do people really think that chaps like Grier with years of experience in that very business would stumble blindly over the sham Whyte conducted? And then putting his name and that of his company at risk again when appearing on TV?

 

Anyway, we will find out soon enough. Some will perhaps dance a jig if theiy are correct in their assumptions, I will not. For at the end, my club suffers and there is no joy to be had here either way.

 

If the BBC have f*&ked up them I'm sure the libel writ is on its' way, hope it arrives more rapidly than the one Craig Whyte employed Carter Ruck to issue, remind me again what was the outcome of that lawsuit? Did the BBC get their arses handed to them on a plate, was Daly sacked for making up fairy stories?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again there is something strange that happens to the professional classes when they come into contact with Craig Whyte as Kenneth McLeod, Kevin Sykes and Gary Withey et al so ably demonstrate who knows if David Grier will be the next to join that list

 

Anyway, we will find out soon enough. Some will perhaps dance a jig if theiy are correct in their assumptions, I will not. For at the end, my club suffers and there is no joy to be had here either way.

 

I certainly won't be dancing any jig whether my assumptions are correct or not, I know my club is suffering and I wan't all those responsible for that suffering brought to task whoever they are and wherever they are.

[der Berliner 3,744]

... who knows if David Grier will be the next to join that list.

 

The point is that you openly assume that he is, I do not. At least not by default.

 

As for the BBC ... yes, they uncovered some strange and true stuff about the Wyhte deal and a few of the chaps you mentioned. That again does not by default tell us that the latest programme was also filled with true stuff. Hence I used the words half-truths and assumption above. You apparently make your own assumptions about these half-truths then ... and fair enough.

[der Berliner 3,744]

Snatched from FF

 

Grier puts the record straight.

 

 

 

By Graham Spiers (the discredited journalist)

 

David Grier was in New York City on Wednesday night when a BBC documentary on Rangers was aired in Scotland.

 

It wasn't long before his phone started ringing, because Grier and his insolvency firm, Duff & Phelps, had just been roundly trashed.

 

Daly's documentary cast doubt on the integrity of the Rangers administrators, and in particular on Grier himself, a senior partner of Duff & Phelps. The BBC's central allegation, citing documentation, was that Grier knew all along about Craig Whyte's dodgy plan to use funding provided by investment firm Ticketus to finance his Rangers takeover.

 

It is an allegation Grier has denied, and never more vehemently than yesterday when he ventured to explain to the Sunday Herald why the BBC claims are untrue.

 

"I can tell you categorically â?? at the start of all this neither I nor Duff & Phelps had any knowledge of the way Craig Whyte intended to use Ticketus funding to take over Rangers," said Grier. "Craig Whyte created an illusion â?? which was that he had his own money. That is what all of us believed."

 

Those who watched Wednesday night's airing of Rangers: The Men Who Sold The Jerseys may have real trouble believing in Grier's innocence. The BBC's Mark Daly uncovered emails which appeared to show Grier having very early knowledge of Whyte's involvement with Ticketus â?? a deal which has subsequently been seen to be ruinous for Rangers.

 

Yesterday, however, Grier robustly defended himself. He also claimed the old Rangers board under chairman Alastair Johnston positively egged Whyte on to get involved with Ticketus.

 

"What we do at Duff & Phelps is, we provide advice and assistance to people in the corporate world," Grier said. "Craig Whyte first came to our attention round about December 2010 when we read in the press that he was interested in buying Rangers. So I phoned Craig Whyte speculatively. I basically said to him: 'I don't know you, but I see you want to buy Rangers - can we help you?'

 

"He replied, 'yes, possibly you can', and he asked us if we knew Lloyds Bank at all, which we did. We had a relationship with Lloyds due to various jobs we'd done. So we met Craig Whyte."

 

Grier then says Whyte was very keen to buy Rangers â?? but that there were various sticking points. "Whyte made it clear to me that he didn't want to pay the full value of the debt at Rangers to Lloyds, which was then around £24 million," said Grier. "He said to us: 'Anything under £20m and I'll do it.' So we acted for him in terms of speaking to Lloyds and - we got agreement on a debt reduction from £24m to £18m, on condition of the lease for the Albion car park being continued [by Rangers].

 

"It was at this point that we conducted discussions with Whyte and the old Rangers board. And there were tensions.

 

"At that time the outcome of the big tax case was still awaited. Basically, Rangers were saying that, if the big tax case went against them, there is no way the club could survive.

 

"So our plan [Duff & Phelps on behalf of Whyte] was to go to HMRC and reach a time-to-pay arrangement. So if the bill was, say, £30m, then we'd hope Rangers could pay it back over a set number of years."

 

Grier claims that at the crucial meeting of April 24 last year â?? when Grier, Whyte and the Rangers board met â?? a new, key factor was introduced.

 

"Craig Whyte already knew that Rangers used Ticketus for revenue streams â?? it was an established procedure at the club. Indeed, the old board actually encouraged Whyte to go down the Ticketus route.

 

"At the meeting of April 24 [2011] - the Rangers board were asking Whyte about his means and his wealth. One of them said to him, 'have you thought about going with Ticketus?'

 

"I can stress to you: we had provided Craig Whyte with advice on Lloyds, on HMRC, and on the rights of the lender in any purchase of future season-tickets - we just saw Ticketus as part of Whyte's back-up financial support.

 

"Everyone back then believed that Whyte had the money. We'd had confirmation from Whyte's lawyers [Collyer-Bristow] about his own funding. In our eyes no vast upfront Ticketus money would be required."

 

So, then what happened? By Grier's version of events, he and his Duff & Phelps staff only became aware of the true extent of the Ticketus scenario in late July 2011 â?? which contradicts the BBC's allegation that Grier knew what was happening all along.

 

The so-called "raising of invoices" for Ticketus money in June â?? which the BBC says nails Grier â?? is also disputed.

 

"It was late July, early August when things started to not look right to us," says Grier. "The club had received a tranche of money from Ticketus, of around £9m, in June. Remember, money from Ticketus was quite natural at Rangers. If someone had said, 'here's an invoice for £25m' then that would have been very different. But Ticketus were well established as a funder of Rangers. Then, in about late July, Phil Betts [then a Rangers director] panicked and said: 'We are due Ticketus £7m.'."

 

Crucially, Grier maintains that Duff & Phelps only at this point became alarmed at Whyte's antics in regard to Ticketus.

 

"We'd had no knowledge of what Craig Whyte had done," says Grier.

 

Grier claimed the illusion was created by Craig Whyte that he had the money for the purchase when he clearly didn't.

 

"We have legally gone after Ticketus, because we believe their Rangers arrangement does not hold up under Scots law. - They are not coming after us, because they know we were not in on the deal.

 

"Similarly, we are legally pursuing Collyer-Bristow for £25m. Why are Collyer-Bristow not saying to us, 'but you knew about this'? - it is because they know that we didn't know about the deal."

 

If true, the BBC might be in for some bashing.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Snatched from FF

 

Grier puts the record straight.

 

If true, the BBC might be in for some bashing.

 

LOL....now relying on quoting the biggest Rangers hater in the entire Fourth Estate, weird.

 

Does Grier not read his emails, last time I looked the 19th of April was before the 24th of April, and "Ticketus agreements" plural is Grier denying the contents of the email?

 

Grier claims that at the crucial meeting of April 24 last year â?? when Grier, Whyte and the Rangers board met â?? a new, key factor was introduced.

 

"Craig Whyte already knew that Rangers used Ticketus for revenue streams â?? it was an established procedure at the club. Indeed, the old board actually encouraged Whyte to go down the Ticketus route.

 

"At the meeting of April 24 [2011] - the Rangers board were asking Whyte about his means and his wealth. One of them said to him, 'have you thought about going with Ticketus?'

 

 

[der Berliner 3,744]

LOL....now relying on quoting the biggest Rangers hater in the entire Fourth Estate, weird.

 

Goading, trolling, or just wanting to annoy people? I do not rely on anyone, I just posted an article. I am about long enough to know Britney's bile and antics. And there is no need to put that mail in again, as it does, IMHO, not contradict what Grier has said.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Goading, trolling, or just wanting to annoy people? I do not rely on anyone, I just posted an article. I am about long enough to know Britney's bile and antics. And there is no need to put that mail in again, as it does, IMHO, not contradict what Grier has said.

 

So Grier does not know about any Ticketus agreements on the 19th of April 2011 but he knows on the 19th of April 2011 that the Ticketus agreements will become unconditional once certain factors fall into place?......

[der Berliner 3,744]

So Grier does not know about any Ticketus agreements on the 19th of April 2011 but he knows on the 19th of April 2011 that the Ticketus agreements will become unconditional once certain factors fall into place?......

 

The point is - as has been said - that while Grier knew about a deal with Ticketus and may even have worked on it, it is far from certain that he knew a) all details about the deal, and b) how Whyte wanted to use the Ticketus money. That, again, is the bone of contention.