David Murray breaks his Silence

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

I don't for a moment think that Fullerton had anything to do with it and don't think that Leggat's ramblings should be taken seriously.

 

Murray was looking to sell but had already turned down some very small bids, including one from one of the 3 bears. The bid primarily was designed to get LBG their cash back and remove the BTC risk from the LBG-controlled Murray Group. The bank were clearly calling the shots following the 2010 MIH reorganisation and had placed Muir on the board of several MIH companies including Rangers.

 

I believe that Murray did not have the option of refusing to sell to Whyte as the bank had control, although Murray may well have sold to him anyway if it was up to him.

 

And the bank were quite happy for Rangers to be sold to someone like Whyte ? Did they know his business history ? Plenty of people, not just PM & AJ, certainly knew about him.

Not only that but when Whyte got Rangers they withdrew all Rangers bank credit. Very strange

Edited January 14, 2015 by RANGERRAB

[Calgacus 8]

Why would the Bank care who Rangers were sold to..their only interest was to get some money back. It wasn't their problem.

[Bluedell 5,624]

And the bank were quite happy for Rangers to be sold to someone like Whyte ? Did they know his business history ? Plenty of people, not just PM & AJ, certainly knew about him.

Not only that but when Whyte got Rangers they withdrew all Rangers bank credit. Very strange

 

What did the bank care about Whyte given that they got their money back and had no risk going forward?

 

Nothing strange about them not giving Rangers any facilities. On the contrary, It would have been surprising if they had.

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

Why would the Bank care who Rangers were sold to..their only interest was to get some money back. It wasn't their problem.

 

Really? Don't you think they'd some sort of responsbility in all of this to ensure RANGERS were sold to a reputable owner?

And do the bank not still have in their possession the £18m Whyte gave them which will likely be deemed the proceeds of fraud at a trial later this year? does it seem ok for a bank to behave in that manner?

Edited January 14, 2015 by RANGERRAB

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I would get a ban if i was to say what i think of that c@nt Murray now.

I think we got a flavour of it .

[craig 5,199]

And Donald Muir was certainly well rewarded for this sale was he not?

SDM always said he'd only sell to the right person(s). And he was well warned about Whyte was he not by the likes of PM ? So why did he sell? The answer is very apparent IMO

 

None of which categorically proves a forced sale. I thought that whilst Muir was on board the Club debt was drastically reduced, was it not ? So whilst he may have been well rewarded, that also doesn't prove a forced sale.

 

SDM said many things which he didn't follow through on. You are being very selective in the ones you choose to believe.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending SDM or Donald Muir in any way, shape or form. Nor am I saying a forced sale didn't happen - I just choose to find it very hard to believe that it was as a result of nefarious actions from Celtic-Minded LBG employees, which is the real thrust of this line you perpetuate Rab.

[craig 5,199]

What did the bank care about Whyte given that they got their money back and had no risk going forward?

 

Nothing strange about them not giving Rangers any facilities. On the contrary, It would have been surprising if they had.

 

Exactly, they had spent many a year concerned at the "boom and bust" approach of Rangers - the moment they knew they were getting their cash back they would have been silly to then extend credit facilities to the Club once more. We were a noose they no longer wished around their neck.

 

But some refuse to accept anything other than a Celtic-Minded conspiracy. Trust me, I love my conspiracies - but this one I just cant see being the case.

[craig 5,199]

Really? Don't you think they'd some sort of responsbility in all of this to ensure RANGERS were sold to a reputable owner?

And do the bank not still have in their possession the £18m Whyte gave them which will likely be deemed the proceeds of fraud at a trial later this year? does it seem ok for a bank to behave in that manner?

 

What responsibility did LBG have to ensure the Club was sold to a reputable owner ? They have a fiduciary duty, just like RFC does, to its shareholders. Getting its money back from Rangers would be considered wise, prudent business. Extending further credit facilities to an entity which had a very large potential noose around its neck in the EBT case could very easily constitute a lack of fiduciary duty - had that EBT case been lost we would have been wound up (ignoring the fact that the oldco will be wound up anyway, and ignoring hindsight...) and that would have been a failing on the banks part to their shareholders.

 

Why would the bank give up that 18 million at this point ? Their contract was with Whyte to receive the full funding. He did that. They should be keeping that cash until such time as the whole case settles. If they followed proper Know Your Customer ("KYC" regulations then they did the due diligence they had to. They probably wouldn't have been privy to the nefarious means that used by Whyte to obtain that 18 million to repay them.

Edited January 14, 2015 by craig