Charles Green Statement

[allgers 735]

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

[WWTC 2,257]

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?

[bombaybadboy08 15,660]

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'.

[CalvinC 1,414]

They should have a boxing match.

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

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?

[daviecooper01 826]

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...

[DNW 26]

Charles Green

I for one back you 100%.

He is the ONLY one who put his money where his mouth is.

Fuck you Whyte !!!!!

[will_1974 204]

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.

[will_1974 204]

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

[Big Al 55 9,323]

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.

[scarkev 3,540]

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!

[Big Al 55 9,323]

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?

[will_1974 204]

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

[bombaybadboy08 15,660]

According to HMRC a CVA was never going to be approved.

[WWTC 2,257]

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.

[daviecooper01 826]

they gave him an unconnected account to hide the money

oh ffs gie us peace

Why 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.

[Big Al 55 9,323]

According to HMRC a CVA was never going to be approved.

CG not quoted saying he had agreement in principle with HMRC?

[keithgersbear 3,225]

Craig Whyte is a CUNT.

[Band of Brothers 10,303]

[WWTC 2,257]

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?

[scarkev 3,540]

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!

[daviecooper01 826]

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.

[daviecooper01 826]

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

[Band of Brothers 10,303]

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

[WWTC 2,257]

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?