King : Bomber should stand vindicated by Rangers fans

[Blade 38]

Like I said, Whyte and everything connected to him became irrelevant with the failed Cva.

Hope you're right.

[daviecooper01 826]

I've told you all I know and what Green told me.

There have already been ridiculous perversions of the law in the original takeover by Whyte. Eg whyte borrowing money to buy the old co based on future earnings !!! How did Whyte manage to do this Mr Legalbegal ?

How do you surmise Whyte was persuaded to transfer ownership over to Green ? Papers need to be signed over. Why would Whyte do this without getting something out of this there and then or a promise of a future payment after the flotation ?

Whyte did not need to sign anything over to anyone. The company Whyte owned is in liquidation. The assets of it were sold from admin to Green by D&P.Whyte means and has nothing.

[bluenose48 951]

Already bought all of Australia for two pints last night, so you've clearly constructed a tissue of lies.

Bugger! Sprung. Just missed out on that deal, glad we've been sold to a fellow Bear anyway.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

It was Sheffield Utd that he was involved with not Wednesday !

You mean the United who spent themselves into massive debt chasing promotion to the English premier league that Green made solvent again? That Sheffield United?

Uh-oh boys, Charles Green saved a club that gambled and lost, time to panic!!! Abandon ship!!

I'm thinking of a phrase, it begins with "fuck" and ends with "off".

[legalbeagle 3,734]

I've told you all I know and what Green told me.

There have already been ridiculous perversions of the law in the original takeover by Whyte. Eg whyte borrowing money to buy the old co based on future earnings !!! How did Whyte manage to do this Mr Legalbegal ?

How do you surmise Whyte was persuaded to transfer ownership over to Green ? Papers need to be signed over. Why would Whyte do this without getting something out of this there and then or a promise of a future payment after the flotation ?

Ok, firstly he bought the oldco for a pound.

Secondly, he ran it with a loan secured against future earnings which is how most loans work.

Thirdly, he appointed administrators through the courts to run the club, they are legally obliged to act in the interests of securing the best outcome for the creditors, that was deemed to be an asset sale and liquidation (after discussions with creditors) and therefore the assets were sold.

I don't want to imply anything about you, but either you are pursuing some agenda, or you have failed to grasp the basic point that Whyte did not sell the company to Green.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Whyte did not need to sign anything over to anyone. The company Whyte owned is in liquidation. The assets of it were sold from admin to Green by D&P.Whyte means and has nothing.

I think he's been told this over a dozen times yet he still persists with the negative interpretation that espouses Whyte as a real threat, despite there being absolutely no evidence for the claim.

[bigj9659 4]

Maybe Whitey was made a an offer he couldn't refuse?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4962088302740145&pid=15.1

[Ozblue 4,331]

Why the fuck did I bother opening this thread after just getting out of bed A beautiful hot Sunday morning;the sun is shining and Blade has just made me feel as if my head has been birling around in a fucking tumble dryer for a week.

What I want to know is this,Mr Blade! Did Charles Green tell you this in a tete-a-tete,or did he tell you it an open conversation? I'm sure that if Charles Green divulged this information to you then that same information would be common knowledge to many people,some of which could be in positions that would enable the word to be spread to the media;OR even perhaps Bomber Brown himself.

While I am not inferring that you never heard these words uttered from the mouth of Charles Green,I'm wondering why with all the media and general interest in this whole saga since Whyte did the dirty on us, it's just now that YOU reveal this "exclusive information"

You also say that you never mentioned it before on this forum because,in your own words; "Because i'd have been dismissed as a crank or a Mhank. Just like everyone on here dismissed Bomber."

I can see your point in that,although In all fairness, I think that thought might be going through the head of a few people at the moment; but in that case why did you not contact Bomber and relate your story to him,which would have gave his outburst more credence at the time?

Personally I couldn't give a fat rats arsehole if Green did a shifty (where's the eyes gone to?) on Whyte,because that plonky eyed wee arsehole deserves far more pain than having being fiddled by a "snake oil seller."

[Blade 38]

Ok, firstly he bought the oldco for a pound.

Secondly, he ran it with a loan secured against future earnings which is how most loans work.

Thirdly, he appointed administrators through the courts to run the club, they are legally obliged to act in the interests of securing the best outcome for the creditors, that was deemed to be an asset sale and liquidation (after discussions with creditors) and therefore the assets were sold.

I don't want to imply anything about you, but either you are pursuing some agenda, or you have failed to grasp the basic point that Whyte did not sell the company to Green.

My understanding that it was illegal to use future season ticket sales to buy the club. I believe this is against company takeover rules.

With the floating charge, Whyte became the main creditor and controlled the assets. Did he not ?

Do you know whether the old co actually owned the assets outright ? I don't think they did and that's why I'm sure that Green needed Whyte's co-operation.

[Bertent 2,081]

My understanding that it was illegal to use future season ticket sales to buy the club. I believe this is against company takeover rules.

With the floating charge, Whyte became the main creditor and controlled the assets. Did he not ?

Do you know whether the old co actually owned the assets outright ? I don't think they did and that's why I'm sure that Green needed Whyte's co-operation.

Dear Richard,

instead of panicking please research the term Leveraged Buy Out, such as used to fund the purchase of Man Utd and many many companies world wide.

Cheers

Your good friend

Knowledge is strength.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

My understanding that it was illegal to use future season ticket sales to buy the club. I believe this is against company takeover rules.

With the floating charge, Whyte became the main creditor and controlled the assets. Did he not ?

Do you know whether the old co actually owned the assets outright ? I don't think they did and that's why I'm sure that Green needed Whyte's co-operation.

He bought the club for a pound, he did not buy the club with future sales, I am not sure how many times I should have to say that.

I am not going to spend eternity arguing with you when you make random statements and back them up by saying you don't know, or you 'think'. I am not here to counter your brain dumps. Before you post again on it, do some research. Find out what a floating charge actually is for a start.

[Dunny_01 2,007]

Big bomber standing right in middle of directors box section! show us yer ticket big yin lol

[Blade 38]

He bought the club for a pound, he did not buy the club with future sales, I am not sure how many times I should have to say that.

I am not going to spend eternity arguing with you when you make random statements and back them up by saying you don't know, or you 'think'. I am not here to counter your brain dumps. Before you post again on it, do some research. Find out what a floating charge actually is for a start.

He secured £24m from Ticketus to pay off the bank debt and secure the floating charge over the assets, with future ticket sales. Have you forgotten about that ?

[legalbeagle 3,734]

He secured £24m from Ticketus to pay off the bank debt and secure the floating charge over the assets, with future ticket sales. Have you forgotten about that ?

He got a loan based on future revenue to pay off the bank debt. He bought the club for a pound.

[Blade 38]

He got a loan based on future revenue to pay off the bank debt. He bought the club for a pound.

Ticketus obviously had no idea what he was up to. The Bank debt was only £18m ! They lent him £24m.

It was like getting a 133 pc mortgage ! No equity provided. And using future earnings for the whole deal !

A wild guess, but sounds dodgy to me ! Criminal investigation on going. Hope they nail the wee cunt and he goes down for a very long time.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

Ticketus obviously had no idea what he was up to. The Bank debt was only £18m ! They lent him £24m.

It was like getting a 133 pc mortgage ! No equity provided. And using future earnings for the whole deal !

A wild guess, but sounds dodgy to me ! Criminal investigation on going. Hope they nail the wee cunt and he goes down for a very long time.

We all do.... I am totally lost as to what your point is now.

[daviecooper01 826]

We all do.... I am totally lost as to what your point is now.

The problem with the Ticketus deal is as follows.

To buy the club, Whyte had to have proof of funds. Funds to clear the debt and inject some cash.

He did not have those funds, so did a deal, underwritten personally and by HIS companies with Ticketus against 4 seasons of future ST sales.

These funds were transferred to his lawyers BEFORE the purchase of the club was completed, as it was those funds that were evidenced that Whyte had sufficient capital.

And that is the crucial, and illegal part - Whyte used assets he did not own as part of the deal to buy the club. Yes he bought the shares for £1, but part of getting them at that price was to clear the debt & inject funds. To do that he needed funds. Which he did not have.

So he mortgaged something he did not yet own in order to become owner.

And that is illegal.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

The problem with the Ticketus deal is as follows.

To buy the club, Whyte had to have proof of funds. Funds to clear the debt and inject some cash.

He did not have those funds, so did a deal, underwritten personally and by HIS companies with Ticketus against 4 seasons of future ST sales.

These funds were transferred to his lawyers BEFORE the purchase of the club was completed, as it was those funds that were evidenced that Whyte had sufficient capital.

And that is the crucial, and illegal part - Whyte used assets he did not own as part of the deal to buy the club. Yes he bought the shares for £1, but part of getting them at that price was to clear the debt & inject funds. To do that he needed funds. Which he did not have.

So he mortgaged something he did not yet own in order to become owner.

And that is illegal.

Which still bears no resemblance to the point that is being discussed in the thread.

[daviecooper01 826]

Of course it does. If Whyte essentially broke the law whilst buying the club, then the purchase, and any so called floating charge claim falls.

The floating charge claim is now moot, as if any existed, it was with Oldco, and the process of assets sale from admin negated it completely.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

Of course it does. If Whyte essentially broke the law whilst buying the club, then the purchase, and any so called floating charge claim falls.

The floating charge claim is now moot, as if any existed, it was with Oldco, and the process of assets sale from admin negated it completely.

You may be explaining this to the wrong person, Blade is the one who is convinced that CG is in this with CW and he is the one who has no idea what a floating charge is.

I agree with you.

[daviecooper01 826]

You may be explaining this to the wrong person, Blade is the one who is convinced that CG is in this with CW and he is the one who has no idea what a floating charge is.

I agree with you.

Fair enough

[DerekMc1972 41]

David fucking Murray is responsible for where we are today. I will never forgive that fucking arsehole.

[daviecooper01 826]

David fucking Murray is responsible for where we are today. I will never forgive that fucking arsehole.

Hmmm - he is responsible for selling a company with £18m reducing debt, within payment schedules to a shyster.

Whyte did the rest, deliberately, for his own & his "pals" ends.

[Blade 38]

The problem with the Ticketus deal is as follows.

To buy the club, Whyte had to have proof of funds. Funds to clear the debt and inject some cash.

He did not have those funds, so did a deal, underwritten personally and by HIS companies with Ticketus against 4 seasons of future ST sales.

These funds were transferred to his lawyers BEFORE the purchase of the club was completed, as it was those funds that were evidenced that Whyte had sufficient capital.

And that is the crucial, and illegal part - Whyte used assets he did not own as part of the deal to buy the club. Yes he bought the shares for £1, but part of getting them at that price was to clear the debt & inject funds. To do that he needed funds. Which he did not have.

So he mortgaged something he did not yet own in order to become owner.

And that is illegal.

Thank you. This is what I was trying to say, but you explained it much more succinctly.

[Blade 38]

Hmmm - he is responsible for selling a company with £18m reducing debt, within payment schedules to a shyster.

Whyte did the rest, deliberately, for his own & his "pals" ends.

David Murray was forced by LBG to sell to Whyte, because the bank were worried they'd never recover the £18m debt if we lost the Big Tax case.

In my opinion, there's no way that LBG and DM didn't know about Whyte's history or background. So in my view, they're both responsible for the Whyte fiasco.

Whyte is many things but he's not stupid (he managed to get control in the 1st place, with only a£1 ) and will have schemed a plan to suck as much money out of Rangers as possible. For obvious reasons, he couldn't be part of a share flotation, which is the easiest way to raise as much money as possible. Hence he needed a "friendly" buyer/ front man.