allgers 735 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Cant believe some people are questioning Chas over his ethics, we don't need ethics, we need somebody to fight our corner and if it has to be dirty, let it be Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWTC 2,460 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Considering the CVA was rejected Whyte was an irrelevance whether he had a £1 or a £1 billion in his bank account.Whyte's shares only mattered if a CVA was going to happen as it was rejected his shares became as defunct And if the CVA had gone through, as per plan A? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombaybadboy08 15,660 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 I must be missing something I thought it had been confirmed 137k was taken from CW and deposited in a bank acc controlled by CG. I'm asking why?To lead Whyte down the garden path and let him believe he was going to be a part of the rebuilt Rangers?He deposited it but I don't believe it was 'taken'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalvinC 1,414 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 They should have a boxing match. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingWilBEARy 4,319 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 I must be missing something I thought it had been confirmed 137k was taken from CW and deposited in a bank acc controlled by CG. I'm asking why?You think Whyte sent them a cheque? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 You think Whyte sent them a cheque?He tried that before - it bounced.So they gave him an account not related to the takeover vehicles. And when an unannounced, unrequested, unwanted £137k appears, they try to send it back, but Whyte refuses it. So it sits there - not tied to the club, or the takeover vehicles. But as soon as this became public tonight, you can be sure Whyte's creditors will be after it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNW 26 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Charles GreenI for one back you 100%.He is the ONLY one who put his money where his mouth is.Fuck you Whyte !!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_1974 204 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 agree this doesn't sit well with me. Dead easy to say it was part of a cunning plan.Thought about this more. Say whyte had come up with the 6m and this was combined along with the money from Greens consortium. CVA gets agreed and Sevco 5088 get rangers. The club clears its liabilities for 12 m. Whyte gets his handshake and greens consortium get the club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_1974 204 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Cant believe some people are questioning Chas over his ethics, we don't need ethics, we need somebody to fight our corner and if it has to be dirty, let it be we do need ethics - ethics got us in the mess we were in Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,508 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 He tried that before - it bounced.So they gave him an account not related to the takeover vehicles. And when an unannounced, unrequested, unwanted £137k appears, they try to send it back, but Whyte refuses it. So it sits there - not tied to the club, or the takeover vehicles. But as soon as this became public tonight, you can be sure Whyte's creditors will be after it...And my worry is that lends some credence legally that there was some sort of agreement in place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarkev 3,540 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 And if the CVA had gone through, as per plan A?It is an irrelevance now but the fact green changed the company from sevco 808(or whatever it was) thereby whyte would have no claim over any rangers assests which were purchased via a different company! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,508 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 And if the CVA had gone through, as per plan A?Exactly.. Was there agreement in place should the Cva have been agreed? When it wasn't did CG see his chance to go it alone? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_1974 204 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 He tried that before - it bounced.So they gave him an account not related to the takeover vehicles. And when an unannounced, unrequested, unwanted £137k appears, they try to send it back, but Whyte refuses it. So it sits there - not tied to the club, or the takeover vehicles. But as soon as this became public tonight, you can be sure Whyte's creditors will be after it... they gave him an unconnected account to hide the money Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombaybadboy08 15,660 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 According to HMRC a CVA was never going to be approved. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWTC 2,460 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 It is an irrelevance now but the fact green changed the company from sevco 808(or whatever it was) thereby whyte would have no claim over any rangers assests which were purchased via a different company!Seems reasonable. It just doesnt sit well with me that theres alot of emphasis put on the failure to agree a CVA. All Greens said is that once the CVA failed whyte became irrelevant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 they gave him an unconnected account to hide the moneyoh ffs gie us peaceWhy hide £137k? Why risk the whole thing?Why risk being done for fraudulent IPO?Why risk the ire of the entire support by being any way involved in Whyte?Complete and utter bs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,508 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 According to HMRC a CVA was never going to be approved.CG not quoted saying he had agreement in principle with HMRC? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithgersbear 3,225 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Craig Whyte is a CUNT. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Band of Brothers 10,303 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWTC 2,460 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 It is an irrelevance now but the fact green changed the company from sevco 808(or whatever it was) thereby whyte would have no claim over any rangers assests which were purchased via a different company!Sorry for posting again, but do you think that would stand up legally? We hae agreements in place in the event of a CVA, charles greens admitted as much i think, but it wouldnt have mattered because we used a different company name. Did craig whyte, at any point, have any stake/control/agreement with any company owning our football club, other than the one he liquidated? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarkev 3,540 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Seems reasonable. It just doesnt sit well with me that theres alot of emphasis put on the failure to agree a CVA. All Greens said is that once the CVA failed whyte became irrelevant.He did become an irelevance at that point though which is accurate! The fact is going by everything I can read and based on greens statement whyte never has any claim even if a CVA had been accepted but he had to make him think he did have to get the shares....exactly as Brian Kennedy was trying to do! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Seems reasonable. It just doesnt sit well with me that theres alot of emphasis put on the failure to agree a CVA. All Greens said is that once the CVA failed whyte became irrelevant.OK, simple.Pre CVA, Green (or anyone else) needs Whyte's shares to get a CVA completed. So he butters Whyte up, asks for funds (instead of the infamous Murray "proof of funds"....) - get's a £25k cheque which promptly bounces.This sets alarm bells ringing further - so they say £6m Whyte is your side - ante up - here's the account.Nothing happens, CVA fails, then £137k arrives unannounced.And once CVA failed - Whyte was completely irrelevant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daviecooper01 826 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Sorry for posting again, but do you think that would stand up legally? We hae agreements in place in the event of a CVA, charles greens admitted as much i think, but it wouldnt have mattered because we used a different company name. Did craig whyte, at any point, have any stake/control/agreement with any company owning our football club, other than the one he liquidated?Simple answer - no he did not Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Band of Brothers 10,303 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Wish I'd been there, was to busy fighting ragheads! Stick together fucks sake all fucking week it's Rangers fans having ago at each other, most have you have cracking memories and I intend to be there for the rest! Friday night lets party until 12 kick off Sunday troops as this is getting tedious Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWTC 2,460 Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 OK, simple.Pre CVA, Green (or anyone else) needs Whyte's shares to get a CVA completed. So he butters Whyte up, asks for funds (instead of the infamous Murray "proof of funds"....) - get's a £25k cheque which promptly bounces.This sets alarm bells ringing further - so they say £6m Whyte is your side - ante up - here's the account.Nothing happens, CVA fails, then £137k arrives unannounced.And once CVA failed - Whyte was completely irrelevant.If the CVA had been agreed in principle, and whyte did come up with the £6M funding he required, he'd own half the club though, is that right? Or atleast these "buttering up" deals would have substance? Is that right? 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.