Charles Green STV

[pete 2,499]

Yes, it's repeated on STV+1 for those who missed it.

 

I don't seem to have STV+1 on the Satellite.

[forlanssister 3,114]

I don't seem to have STV+1 on the Satellite.

 

I think it's only on freeview, you could try the STV player.

[Zappa 0]

The Scotland Tonight show will be up at the following link at some point tonight or tomorrow - http://player.stv.tv/programmes/scotland-tonight/

[Zappa 0]

This is relevant to a number of theads tonight.

 

Forget what a "Rangers spokesman" said or didn't say some time last year, the fact of the matter is that the Club was sold direct from oldco to Sevco Scotland Limited. It was NOT sold to Sevco 5088 Limited and then transferred on to Sevco Scotland Limited. The Club and assets have never been owned by Sevco 5088 Limited despite the liar Whyte saying otherwise.

 

Here is an extract from the D&P interim report dated 10 July 2012:

 

"4.1 The Club continued to trade under the control of the Joint Administrators up to the date of the sale of the business and assets of the Company to Sevco on 14 June 2012."

 

"Sevco" is defined in the report as: "Sevco Scotland Limited of Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow G51 2XD (Company number SC425159)"

 

In the D&P final report dated 27 September 2012, they stated:

 

"7.1 A detailed outline of the marketing process undertaken by the Joint Administrators which preceded the sale of the business, history and certain assets of the Club to Newco on 14 June 2012, was provided in the previous report to creditors dated 10 July 2012."

 

"Newco" is defined in this report as "The Rangers Football Club Limited (Formerly Sevco Scotland Limited) of Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow G51 2XD (Company number SC425159)"

 

Facts are facts. We really need to stop doing the mhedia's job for them.

 

These are NOT definite facts though!!! These are quotes from Duff & Phelps reports which are NOT to be 100% trusted or regarded as definite "facts".

 

Reason? Well a lot of us here didn't trust Duff & Phelps one iota and the CVA proposal they released contained incorrect facts (or mistakes?). Whether those mistakes were accidental or not is unknown, but anyone who remembers back to our discussions on here when the CVA proposal was released, will remember that mistakes in the CVA proposal were mentioned. I can't remember what the mistakes were off the top of my head, but there were definitely mistakes in it and that should be verifiable.

 

My basic point here though, is simply that just because certain entries in Duff & Phelps reports say x,y or z doesn't mean that these report entries can be regarded as guaranteed FACTS!.

[UCF2008 0]

The element of this that puzzles me most is Green and Ahmad demanding payments from Whyte.

 

Green claims they were trying to sweet talk Whyte into handing over his shares. Even if it was to cover legal costs, why did Whyte need to make these payments?

 

You'd think if the aim was to seperate Whyte from his shares that any money would be heading in the opposite direction.

 

I'm purely speculating here, but my take on it is that I think Green and his team really were brought in as a front for Whyte. I believe they themselves didn't have the funds to cover legal costs and the exclusivity fee. They had apparently agreed with Whyte as part of his scheme that these costs would be covered by Whyte. When they weren't, agreement was reached with D&P who were in no position to let the deal collapse, that the costs would be covered by funds generated post acquisition - the loan.

 

I think it was only at this point that the decision was made between Green, Ahmad and D&P to cut Whyte loose. I think this decision was made immediately prior to Whyte finally stumping up the money which was transferred to mother Ahmad's bank account which is why that money has aledgedly never been touched.

[simplythebest 0]

The element of this that puzzles me most is Green and Ahmad demanding payments from Whyte.

 

Green claims they were trying to sweet talk Whyte into handing over his shares. Even if it was to cover legal costs, why did Whyte need to make these payments?

 

You'd think if the aim was to seperate Whyte from his shares that any money would be heading in the opposite direction.

 

I'm purely speculating here, but my take on it is that I think Green and his team really were brought in as a front for Whyte. I believe they themselves didn't have the funds to cover legal costs and the exclusivity fee. They had apparently agreed with Whyte as part of his scheme that these costs would be covered by Whyte. When they weren't, agreement was reached with D&P who were in no position to let the deal collapse, that the costs would be covered by funds generated post acquisition - the loan.

 

I think it was only at this point that the decision was made between Green, Ahmad and D&P to cut Whyte loose. I think this decision was made immediately prior to Whyte finally stumping up the money which was transferred to mother Ahmad's bank account which is why that money has aledgedly never been touched.

 

Making him think they wanted investment from him could easily have been part of the shafting process.

[Zappa 0]

PS... The mistakes in the CVA proposal weren't typing errors either, they were factual errors!

[UCF2008 0]

Making him think they wanted investment from him could easily have been part of the shafting process.

 

As part of the initial agreement possibly, but evidence is mounting that they were harassing Whyte for these payments.

 

When Green and Ahmad sat there in the initial press conference with Green waving around a piece of paper which he claimed to be the deal for Whytes shares which he purchased for £2 do you honestly believe they were being honest in anything they said?

 

Green was announced as preferred bidder on 13th May.

 

A Letter before Claim legal document sent by Whyte to Green and the England-based financier reads: “Craig Whyte is in possession of a text from Imran Ahmad dated 12th May, 2012, providing the bank account details of Imran Ahmad’s mother.”

 

Another passage in the papers — which set out the Monaco-based businessman’s latest allegations — states: “Craig Whyte is in possession of a text from Imran Ahmad dated 16th May, 2012, confirming receipt of the £137.5K.”

 

Last night Rangers confirmed the cash WAS paid into Ahmad’s mother’s account — so Green’s consortium could shield their dealings with Whyte as they attempted to keep him onside while they tried to buy his shares.

 

A club spokesman said: “Imran Ahmad paid the £200,000 exclusivity fee himself. This amount was paid well in advance of any money ever appearing from Craig Whyte.

 

You might recall there was a delay in the exclusvity fee money being paid following announcement of Green as PB. This was confirmed by D&P the week after the announcement. So if Ahmad paid the exclusivity fee all by himself 'well in advance of any money ever appearing from Craig Whyte' how can the delay in payment be explained?

[BlueMazza 0]

Fucking hell. And I feel like I'm back a year ago with no idea who or what the fuck to believe.

[der Berliner 3,885]

These are NOT definite facts though!!! These are quotes from Duff & Phelps reports which are NOT to be 100% trusted or regarded as definite "facts".

 

Reason? Well a lot of us here didn't trust Duff & Phelps one iota and the CVA proposal they released contained incorrect facts (or mistakes?). Whether those mistakes were accidental or not is unknown, but anyone who remembers back to our discussions on here when the CVA proposal was released, will remember that mistakes in the CVA proposal were mentioned. I can't remember what the mistakes were off the top of my head, but there were definitely mistakes in it and that should be verifiable.

 

My basic point here though, is simply that just because certain entries in Duff & Phelps reports say x,y or z doesn't mean that these report entries can be regarded as guaranteed FACTS!.

 

I was under the impression that these reports are made to the Court of Session as well and hence D&P would well and truly cover their backsides in there, as opposed to general statements made on the club's website et al.