craig whyte cleared

[der Berliner 3,449]

I've a couple of questions.

 

1. What were the actual charges against Whyte?

 

2. It's been said that the case proves SDM knew that the cash that was going to Lloyds was going to come from Ticketus. Who testified to that effect and what was said?

 

There are quite a few things that are indeed irritating. I think I read in SDM's replies that he did indeed say that you can use e.g. Ticketus to get money in advance to "run" the club. Buying it with money that is not your own is another thing entirely - and you would assume Ticketus has some things to answer here, as you wonder how Whyte could make deals with them without actually owning any shares et al. But AFAIK Ticketus is after Whyte anyway, aren't they?

As such, does this judgement can actually used as a precedent for similar takeovers?

 

Then there is the question about Findlay being allowed to do this job, as he was previously involved with Rangers as a director and may still hold grudges against SDM and Rangers, so there is a personal level that should have been used by the prosecution. Whether or not Findlay is an exceptional lawyer and utterly impartial is not important here, as we saw by what means he fought the claims and eventually succeeded in a trial where the end result leaves you stunned with disbelief.

 

And finally, no matter what SDM might have known or not, the way Whyte got his money and bought the majority of shares was still nothing short of illegal by British business law, wasn't it? How does this not reflect in the judgement?

[Bluedell 5,413]

There are quite a few things that are indeed irritating. I think I read in SDM's replies that he did indeed say that you can use e.g. Ticketus to get money in advance to "run" the club. Buying it with money that is not your own is another thing entirely - and you would assume Ticketus has some things to answer here, as you wonder how Whyte could make deals with them without actually owning any shares et al. But AFAIK Ticketus is after Whyte anyway, aren't they?

As such, does this judgement can actually used as a precedent for similar takeovers?

 

There's nothing wrong in Murray mentioning Ticketus to Whyte as such as it was obviously a method that the club had used for raising cash for a few months.

 

I recall looking at our financial situation and thinking we were about to run out of cash on a couple of occasions, but I didn't know about the use of Ticketus as it was always cleared by season ticket money come the year end, so it was never mentioned in the accounts.

 

Ticketus obviously knew what the cash was being used for when they did the deal and as such I have absolutely no sympathy with them. They are going after Whyte because he gave them a guarantee.

 

However I'm still unclear as to whether SDM knew that the loan was being repaid with Ticketus cash.

 

It's common in takeover situations that contracts are agreed pre-takeover but finally signed within a minute of the actual takeover taking place. Whyte and Ticketus would have agreed everything in principle pre-takeover but nothing would be signed until after the £1 had been paid to SDM.

 

The situation is unique and I doubt that the decision could be used in other cases, although it's always possible. I certainly wouldn't want to hang my hat on it.

 

Then there is the question about Findlay being allowed to do this job, as he was previously involved with Rangers as a director and may still hold grudges against SDM and Rangers, so there is a personal level that should have been used by the prosecution. Whether or not Findlay is an exceptional lawyer and utterly impartial is not important here, as we saw by what means he fought the claims and eventually succeeded in a trial where the end result leaves you stunned with disbelief.

 

I doubt Findlay would have acted any differently if it hadn't been Rangers, and as such there's nothing for the prosecution to use.

 

And finally, no matter what SDM might have known or not, the way Whyte got his money and bought the majority of shares was still nothing short of illegal by British business law, wasn't it? How does this not reflect in the judgement?

I guess that's the problem with a jury verdict. It's just a straightforward guilty or not guilty with no detailed explanation of why they reached that decision.

 

I believe that they reached the verdict because they were bamboozled by Findlay rather than it being on the factual issues of the case. There was so much talked about that wasn't relevant.

 

I also believe that the decision isn't that straightforward anyway. There were a number of commitments made by Whyte, including the repaying of the debt, but I believe it's a bit unclear as to whether these commitments legally formed part of the actual share purchase or didn't. The commitments did not involve the seller of the shares per se, so there's a chance the court may not have found him guilty even if it had been prosecuted properly. It's a grey area.

[pete 2,499]

I've a couple of questions.

 

1. What were the actual charges against Whyte?

 

2. It's been said that the case proves SDM knew that the cash that was going to Lloyds was going to come from Ticketus. Who testified to that effect and what was said?

 

I don't think anyone ever said it direct. i think it was the questioning and suggestions of Findlay that made it look possible if not probable. it is obviously taken from the cross examination of Murray and the lloyds guy's

[der Berliner 3,449]

Can we assume that Whyte will still be hounded with other cases?

[union 0]

The charges were something the SFO and CPS failed to find despite their resources.

Leveraged buyouts happen every day of the week,as murray's acquisition of Rangers and that of the Glasiers at Man U are but two examples.

[RANGERRAB 3,392]

The charges were something the SFO and CPS failed to find despite their resources.

Leveraged buyouts happen every day of the week,as murray's acquisition of Rangers and that of the Glasiers at Man U are but two examples.

 

You're surely not suggesting Whyte's 'acquisition' of Rangers was a leveraged buyout?

[union 0]

That's exactly what it was hence no action by the CPS, same as murray's acquisition in 1988.

[forlanssister 3,083]

Is Ticketus still pursuing Whyte for its money?

 

They had a solicitor present on their behalf sitting in the Public Gallery (at least during Ross Bryan's evidence), Findlay clocked him and outed him.

 

I was in court one of the days Bryan was giving evidence.

 

Ticketus weren't duped they were willing participants and succumbed to their own greed.

[craig 5,199]

That's exactly what it was hence no action by the CPS, same as murray's acquisition in 1988.

 

It isn't even close to being the same thing though.

 

Murray and the Glazier's used proper leveraging i.e. Bank financing and other investors.

Whyte used the club's own assets (season ticket sales) before he even owned them.

 

Sure, it is leverage - but the former who are legal and the latter isn't or at least shouldn't be

[union 0]

murray used Ibrox as collateral, masterton insisted on it quite rightly..as the price of the finance before murray owned us.