RANGERRAB 3,731 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 They were under the impression that they had security in future ST sales. They hadn't taken Scot's Law into account. But they were effectively lending money for the purchase of a company which had a potentially massive bill from HMRC hanging over it which it couldn't have paid and would have gone bust. Why did they give Whyte the money and did they not know about his shady business past ? And why didn't they know the difference between Scots law and English law regards ST sales as security? Did they not seek legal advice? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 But they were effectively lending money for the purchase of a company which had a potentially massive bill from HMRC hanging over it which it couldn't have paid and would have gone bust. Why did they give Whyte the money and did they not know about his shady business past ? And why didn't they know the difference between Scots law and English law regards ST sales as security? Did they not seek legal advice? every time the guy at ticketus lent whyte 8 million he got 1 million commision thats why. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,731 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 every time the guy at ticketus lent whyte 8 million he got 1 million commision thats why. I doubt it was that simple. Were no checks done on Whyte by Ticketus or whoever? It's a helluva lot of money for what turned out to be unsecured loans? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 I doubt it was that simple. Were no checks done on Whyte by Ticketus or whoever? It's a helluva lot of money for what turned out to be unsecured loans? 4 million quid will buy a lot of silence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 OK understand. I'd thought because they'd pursued Whyte they'd relinquished their rights as creditors(unsecured)?But are there not two very pertinent questions regards Ticketus 1) why did they give Whyte so much unsecured credit? 2) did they have no idea of Whyte's dubious business background? On the day he got Rangers just about everyone else seemed to know I.e. Jeff Randall, Alistair Johnston, Paul Murray etc. Did they think it wise to lend to such an individual? 1) They got greedy, pure and simple. 2) They got greedy, pure and simple. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Other than HMRC(who are owed the PAYE and NI Whyte didn't pay plus the small tax case which Whyte was supposed to pay but didn't) who are these creditors? There are no football debts as these were paid by newco as a condition of the licence being transferred. Ticketus aren't a creditor as Lord Glennie only granted them personal contractual rights hence their pursuit of Whyte thro' the courts down south. Don't forget too the RFFF paid off a number of small debts too. As a rough guess I'd say HMRC are owed circa £16m. Are D&P and BDO getting the rest of this £24m? I think Ticketus ARE creditors....not preferrential creditors but creditors nonetheless....I think that was the court ruling ps sorry....just read the subsequent replies to your post 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.