DarcheVinny 1,003 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 AJ has mentions this on a number of occasions, so there's really nothing new in this story. As for what SDM knew, well it doesn't matter as LTSB wanted their money and applied all the preasure they could to force through the sale even though there was no good banking reason due to Rangers paying their bills and reducing the debt. AJ has also mentioned the fact that the bank pushed SDM into this sale.Rather than going on about what SDM knew, why are there no questions about what LTSB knew? We all know that the people they had handling Rangers were not minded to be of help, indeed a case can be made that they had their feet well and trully planted in the camp of our biggest rivals. I would hesitate to say they were feeding them information on Ranger's finances as that would be accusing them of something I for one cannot prove. However it does raise the question of who made the desicion to put them in there when it could look like a conflict of interests.Remember this from Leggo in May?http://leggoland2.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/lloyds-accused-again-exclusive.html LLOYDS ACCUSED AGAIN - ExclusiveLLOYDS BANK did play a key role in the sell out of Rangers by David Murray to conman Craig Whyte.I can now reveal that is the case, despite persistent denials from Lloyds chiefs.In fact, as recently as earlier this month, Lloyds Banking Group chairman, Sir Winfried Bischoff told Lloyds shareholders at the Annual General meeting in Edinburgh that the bank had no influence whatsoever in the deal.If facts emerge to the contrary, that statement by Sir Winfried Bischoff could have extremely serious repercussions for the Lloyds Banking Group chairman.For it is a criminal offence for a company chairman to mislead shareholders at an Annual General Meeting.Any part played by Lloyds in the handover of his 85.3per cent shareholding in Rangers by David Murray to conman Craig Whyte for a quid, relates to a type of security held by the bank which is called a Negative Pledge.There are three documents involved, a Directors’ Guarantee, which is self explanatory and a Fixed and Floating Charge, which relates, in part, to fixed assets such as Ibrox, the Albion car park and the Milngavie training ground.But it is the third, The Negative Pledge, which is the important one in the case of the sell out of Rangers by David Murray to Craig Whyte and the dodgy deal Whyte set up top get a £24M loan from Ticketus by mortgaging season tickets before he owned Rangers.That was, in fact, the money which funded the £18M pay off to Lloyds Bank.And handing over that £18M to Lloyds in a lump sum was a condition of Craig Whyte being allowed to buy Rangers for a quid.For Craig Whyte could NOT have gone ahead and bought Rangers WITHOUT the say so of Lloyds.Because of the Negative Pledge, Whyte and David Murray would have had to inform Lloyds Bank of the deal with Ticketus and get their permission for the Whyte-Ticketus deal to go ahead.And without the £24M Ticketus handed Whyte, the trickster would not have been able to hand over £18M to Lloyds before the ink was dry on the contract which gave him ownership of Rangers.Which hardly sits well with what Lloyds Banking Group chairman, Sir Winfried Bischoff told the bank’s shareholders at that stormy AGM in Edinburgh when he was under pressure to answer a number of questions about the way the sale of Rangers to Craig Whyte, a man with a dubious past and no visible means of support, was handled by Lloyds.Now, nearly two weeks after that AGM, Sir Winfried Bischoff has still to honour a pledge he made at the meeting in response to a question about the role the controversial Donald Muir played in the dodgy deal.Muir, you will recall, was a Rangers director, put there by Lloyds and was the Lloyds man on the Ibrox board.Yet amazingly, Sir Winfried Bischoff asked the AGM to believe that he had no idea what – if any, he said – Donald Muir played in the dodgy deal which delivered Rangers to conman Whyte and which led directly to the Ibrox club’s current crisis.But Sir Winfried Bischoff did publicly pledge that he would find out and get the answer to the shareholder who quizzed him.I spoke to that shareholder last night and now, almost a fortnight after Sir Winfried Bischoff made his public promise, no answer has been forthcoming.Amazingly, despite their controversial and as yet not full explained role in delivering the deal which sent Rangers hurtling into administration, Lloyds remain Rangers bankers.Perhaps now, a year on from the start of the WHYTE SCANDAL, something which Lloyds sparked and which they remain at the heart of, Lloyds Banking Group – 43per cent owned by the British taxpayer – may be prevailed upon to do some proper due diligence on Charles Green, before Rangers are sold out again.And not just on Charles Green, but also on the Green Gang and the MEN of MYSTERY who are closing in on winning their sleekit fight to snare Rangers without ever revealing the names of the men with the money and what their visible means of support may be.But given Sir Winfried Bischoff’s bungling performance at the Lloyds Banking Group’s Annual General Meeting and his lack of knowledge as to what role the Lloyds' man on the Rangers board, Donald Muir, played in the sell out, plus his apparent denial of the Negative Ple-dge Lloyds held over Rangers, which meant the bank had to sanction to Tickets-Whyte £24M deal, I am not hopeful.Lloyds Bank, having got their mitts on the £18M, funded entirely by the dodgy deal between conman Whyte and Ticketus, don’t seem to care what happens now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,241 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Sorry but that is just pish he was CEO in name only Lloyds TSB drove our debt down in the shape of Donald Muir, nothing to do wiht Bain, Bain still raised his own wage and took bonuses when Mr McCoist and Mr Smith were working for nothing. He did not stand up for the club and left our contracts so open that useless signing such as Capucho and Ostenstad were handsomely paid off for little return - I'd say this is his fault wouldn't you? Onyl stood up for Rangers whjen he and SDM wre getting flack - shown up on numerous occasions by Lawwell.Signing negotiations escalating where the seller ended up getting more than they originally asked for - se SEBO and Jelavic.I seriously could go on an on but won't.Stopped reading after you said Donald Muir was responsible for reducing the debt by controlling the purse string yet under those same circumstances Bain was permitted to raise his own salary. So who was controlling the finances?Bain was CEO for years prior to Donald Muir's intervention. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 AJ has mentions this on a number of occasions, so there's really nothing new in this story. As for what SDM knew, well it doesn't matter as LTSB wanted their money and applied all the preasure they could to force through the sale even though there was no good banking reason due to Rangers paying their bills and reducing the debt. AJ has also mentioned the fact that the bank pushed SDM into this sale.Rather than going on about what SDM knew, why are there no questions about what LTSB knew? We all know that the people they had handling Rangers were not minded to be of help, indeed a case can be made that they had their feet well and trully planted in the camp of our biggest rivals. I would hesitate to say they were feeding them information on Ranger's finances as that would be accusing them of something I for one cannot prove. However it does raise the question of who made the desicion to put them in there when it could look like a conflict of interests.With all due respect it was the MIH Lloyd's that were forcing the issue and not Rangers Lloyd's. Also the whole thing about Manus Fullerton is a pile of pish. It's made up lies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronniemca 479 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 all this shows why the taxman was never going to deal with us. they were out to crucify whyte for his past ,and we never stood a chance.as for slippery dave, i hope he rots in hell for what he did to our club Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devlin 222 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 For me, it's not even new information.Give yourself a pat on the back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,000 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Stopped reading after you said Donald Muir was responsible for reducing the debt by controlling the purse string yet under those same circumstances Bain was permitted to raise his own salary. So who was controlling the finances?Bain was CEO for years prior to Donald Muir's intervention.And the debt was not manageable under Bain's control lloyds forced muir onto the board to get the debt down otherwise there was no point in having him there. Bain was useless no point in discussing it any further with me i am a stubborn bastard on this issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,241 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 And the debt was not manageable under Bain's control lloyds forced muir onto the board to get the debt down otherwise there was no point in having him there. Bain was useless no point in discussing it any further with me i am a stubborn bastard on this issue.You and me both then; before you go care to explain how Bain managed to increase his own salary while Muir was controlling the finances? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 How the fuck has Craig Whyte been getting away with this since he started out in "business"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
five stars 1,635 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Lloyds must of known what was going on. They wanted their money back before the result of the big tax case ,which if it went again Rangers, could of resulted in them losing their money. They would of known that Whyte was shady but forced the sale anyway. Dont know if they did anything illegal but as they claim to be a company with a corporate social responsibilty policy, they certainly didnt apply it on this occasion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
five stars 1,635 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The SFA should of been held responsible for allowing Whyte to take over. They are regulators of the game and are supposed to make sure anyone buying/running a club is a fit and proper person. Surprised some of the shareholder have not tried to sue the sfa for they clearly failed in thier duty. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getstiffed 8,863 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The SFA should of been held responsible for allowing Whyte to take over. They are regulators of the game and are supposed to make sure anyone buying/running a club is a fit and proper person. Surprised some of the shareholder have not tried to sue the sfa for they clearly failed in thier duty.Sshh this article is supposed to put everyone back to sleep on this issue. You're not allowed to expect those with duty of care to actually take care of anything in their care, in this country. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,000 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 You and me both then; before you go care to explain how Bain managed to increase his own salary while Muir was controlling the finances?http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-chief-s-165k-pay-rise-1.1056949Bain salary increase whilst reducing debt 35% go figure oh let me guess he obviously desevred it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-chief-s-165k-pay-rise-1.1056949Bain salary increase whilst reducing debt 35% go figure oh let me guess he obviously desevred it.Not opened it but the headline is misleading. It wasn't a salary increase at all. It was an increased bonus for team and financial performance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,000 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Not opened it but the headline is misleading. It wasn't a salary increase at all. It was an increased bonus for team and financial performance. Every news outlet i havd seen carried the wages rise story rather than bonus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The Fish was spot on about Murray and his bum boy Bain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,791 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 It warned there was no evidence to back claims circulated by Whyte’s spin doctors that he was a billionaire with plenty of cash to finance Rangers.Didn't stop the Record claiming he was a billionaire to sell more papers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Stopped reading after you said Donald Muir was responsible for reducing the debt by controlling the purse string yet under those same circumstances Bain was permitted to raise his own salary. So who was controlling the finances?Bain was CEO for years prior to Donald Muir's intervention.And i still don't know what he done for Rangers? Compare him to Charles Green now. Martin bain should have been doing this for us for years.But no one ever heard from him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,000 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The Fish was spot on about Murray and his bum boy Bain.The Fish now there is a blast from the past. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Right. And......Revealing this information 18 months ago would have made it more useful and relevant. Now we have a new company, new CEO, no debt and we have already started on the road back to greatness.The only people this would interest is people who want to rage against Murray. It's the same with whyte. I hope all the cunts involved in our downfall get punished, but we should really be focusing on rebuilding our club than dragging up pointless information Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senna 735 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Right. And......Revealing this information 18 months ago would have made it more useful and relevant. Now we have a new company, new CEO, no debt and we have already started on the road back to greatness.The only people this would interest is people who want to rage against Murray. It's the same with whyte. I hope all the cunts involved in our downfall get punished, but we should really be focusing on rebuilding our club than dragging up pointless informationThe thing is, if this was published 18mths ago, we may not have believed it. I'd have taken it with a massive pinch of salt tbh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The thing is, if this was published 18mths ago, we may not have believed it. I'd have taken it with a massive pinch of salt tbh.Would have had more impact than the hear'say that was doing the rounds Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,000 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Right. And......Revealing this information 18 months ago would have made it more useful and relevant. Now we have a new company, new CEO, no debt and we have already started on the road back to greatness.The only people this would interest is people who want to rage against Murray. It's the same with whyte. I hope all the cunts involved in our downfall get punished, but we should really be focusing on rebuilding our club than dragging up pointless informationAgreed lets hope those complicit are punished and we move onwards and upwards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senna 735 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Would have had more impact than the hear'say that was doing the roundsRemember the RM rules though, positive press is immediately accepted, and negative press is all bullshit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 How is that?I remember him as the guy who led Rangers in unprecedented financial times, winning 3 consecutive titles, reducing their debt by circa £50M in five or six years. Not bad statistics IMO.Leaving out the ridiculous wage he set for himself, the shambles transfer and commercial dealings when Murray's lackey for years? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Would have had more impact than the hear'say that was doing the roundsThe information was there and a lot of it was being shared. It was just that anyone who mentioned it or spoke about it was dismissed as Timmy or Declan. 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.