Lloyds, Murray, Whyte and Ticketus

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Murray "had to" get the £18m debt with Lloyds dealt with, a debt which was being reduced year on year and Whyte agreed to deal with.

Whyte's lost his court case against Ticketus, who now have a court's vindication of their claim to be duped. The figure involved was about the same as the original Lloyds debt.

Murray last year received a £117.7m injection from Lloyds, in exchange for equity in his group, which then reduced a £636m group debt to £470m. MIH had a "huge and exceptional write-off of £59m" for the sale of Rangers. I take that to mean the asset value of Rangers to MIH.

The HMRC EBT potential debt will also have influenced Lloyds in a straighforward business sense but that was not and has not been realised.

Did Lloyds unfairly target us and our debt? More qualified posters than I will hopefully outline that, and bring substance, rather than merely my amateur suspicions and speculations. Was there such a strong business case for getting us off the MIH balance sheet from Lloyds persective?

Did Murray know about Ticketus, thus meaning that he wasn't "duped"?

What dialogue took place between Murray and Lloyds in relation to debt? This must be a substantial interaction given Walter's assertion about the bank running the club.

Ultimately, what role did Lloyds, a huge financial organisation with contacts and partners all over the country, play in Whyte's involvement and what did they know of Ticketus.

From HMRC to Lloyds and Whyte, among many others, there seems to have been a tapestry of unlikely or unusual events that have all befallen Rangers. If you could have put an accumulator on how much HMRC focused on our EBTs more than others, how harshly we were dealt with in relation to our debt with Lloyds and how cavalier Whyte's stewardship was, no bookmaker would have expected you to walk back in. Indeed, they'd almost certainly suspect some form of fiscal match-fixing.

Why did Lloyds not support us until the point that HMRC forced administration? Surely they would not be forced into accepting the HMRC debt, if the EBT case had went against us. Surely that would have been the rational point for administration if necessary, which of course, was by no means necessary. Or was it that it would have fallen on the whole MIH empire? Would that vindicate their stance? Does it mean that Murray was more responsible than the Lloyds influence is said to suggest?

These are all crucial aspects of the major elements in the narrative of our traumas up to administration. It looks like the police are sniffing around these very areas. We can only hope that they are and that they find the answers we need.

When all this is explained, Whyte's role and interaction with Green will be clearer, one way or another. Until then, the media will dance around any rumour or accusation from Whyte, regardless of its vacuous content.

The bigger story in terms of wrong-doing and its role in explaining how we got to where we are, is being overlooked to focus on accusations from the least credible person in the whole saga against the man who is currently representing and working for the club. Granted Green needs to be more guarded with certain remarks, but no court case has found him liable for a £17m loan received by means of deception. He hasn't single-handedly destroyed a historic Scottish institution either.

It's funny how Green appears to be the bogey man to certain elements of the media when courts and judges repeatedly clear Rangers and have also found one of those responsible for our woes guilty. A certain narrative is more important than the truth in Scotland. That's another depressing verdict which brings no satisfaction with the vindication that it delivers.

[ScottBF2 3,540]

Lloyds acquired our debt through the HBOS merger, this caused them to push us to pay back the debt (something they were entitled to do).

They had to make back as much money as they could from the HBOS deal, and we were one of the ones who drew the short straw. We weren't unfairly targeted, it may just have been that we were one of the highest risk deals, or that we represented one of the deals where they could make their money back quicker.

[YorkshireBear 222]

To be honest i have given up thinking about it. I will only look at it all properly when all the facts are known. Too much if's what's and but's to sift through atm!

[AlCapone 7,678]

Donnoe

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

Don't think it could be an impossibility or far from the truth

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

Murray "had to" get the £18m debt with Lloyds dealt with, a debt which was being reduced year on year and Whyte agreed t deal with.

Whyte's lost his court case against Ticketus, who now have a court's vindication of their claim to be duped. The figure involved was about the same as the original Lloyds debt.

<<snip>>

It's funny how Green appears to be the bogey man to certain elements of the media when courts and judges repeatedly clear Rangers and have also found one of those responsible for our woes guilty. A certain narrative is more important than the truth in Scotland. That's another depressing verdict which brings no satisfaction with the vindication that it delivers.

Snipped good bit of your post Oleg. Interesting observations and lots of good questions of apportionment of blame for trying to destroy our club.

Your first and last paragraphs for me speak volumes about the media in Scotland. Whether they have an anti-Rangers agenda or are just indulging in bovine scatology to sell newspapers I will let others decide. Personally I believe based on the past 12 months that there is an agenda.

What has concerned me this week is the venom with which Rangers and CG have once again been attacked based on the unsupported accusations of a serial liar.

How quickly stories appear in print regarding Green dealing with Whyte or Green having a Shyte or Green making clumsy comments or the SFA demanding 'clarification' from Green. It seems the stories are in print almost a nanosecond after the event has happened.

Contrast with YESTERDAY'S April 10th the story of Whyte and Ticketus. A story that was finally broken FIVE DAYS after the judgement was passed. A not insignificant story was kept under wraps because it didn't suit the agenda of the papers editors or perhaps they just forgot!!! One thing is certain the media will hang on to this bone as long it is selling copy or until their lies and innuendos are challenged.

Green I believe has the bottle to take these people on - I just hope he gets a decent script writer.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Lloyds acquired our debt through the HBOS merger, this caused them to push us to pay back the debt (something they were entitled to do).

They had to make back as much money as they could from the HBOS deal, and we were one of the ones who drew the short straw. We weren't unfairly targeted, it may just have been that we were one of the highest risk deals, or that we represented one of the deals where they could make their money back quicker.

If they forced through the sale by blackmailing Murray, bypassing due diligence just to ensure their debt was settled, but to he'll with all the other creditors, then they have acted wrongly.

Proving it is another matter though.

[sprotson11 147]

Snipped good bit of your post Oleg. Interesting observations and lots of good questions of apportionment of blame for trying to destroy our club.

Your first and last paragraphs for me speak volumes about the media in Scotland. Whether they have an anti-Rangers agenda or are just indulging in bovine scatology to sell newspapers I will let others decide. Personally I believe based on the past 12 months that there is an agenda.

What has concerned me this week is the venom with which Rangers and CG have once again been attacked based on the unsupported accusations of a serial liar.

How quickly stories appear in print regarding Green dealing with Whyte or Green having a Shyte or Green making clumsy comments or the SFA demanding 'clarification' from Green. It seems the stories are in print almost a nanosecond after the event has happened.

Contrast with YESTERDAY'S April 10th the story of Whyte and Ticketus. A story that was finally broken FIVE DAYS after the judgement was passed. A not insignificant story was kept under wraps because it didn't suit the agenda of the papers editors or perhaps they just forgot!!! One thing is certain the media will hang on to this bone as long it is selling copy or until their lies and innuendos are challenged.

Green I believe has the bottle to take these people on - I just hope he gets a decent script writer.

What is even more telling is that this along with the Police raids have been painted in the press as bad news for Rangers with in fact it is the opposite.

[Dutchy 1,200]

Why do folk always say that banks are entitled to break contracts when they take the shitters.

So much for risk taking in the world of finance.

Maybe it's because the deregulation of the financial services means they can indeed do whatever they please without any responsibility as to the consequences.

Walter reckoned the bank was running the club, and I still maintain the bank forced the sale to shitey, so I blame them for fucking us over.

[st1965 14]

Lloyds could have liquidated rangers at any point following the merger with bank of Scotland in 2008.They didn't and worked with SDM to get the debt down to a manageable level after his mis-management. Lloyds had no further involvement once they got their cash as they were SDM bankers not whyte. The "blame" IMO lies with SDM and ticketus for not doing proper due diligence and ticketus subsequently giving whyte the money to buy rangers. So, Whyte then paid off Lloyds and that was the end of their involvement. Even if they had asked whyte where he got his money from and, perhaps they did, the chain would have ended at ticketus who are a reputable company. The high court in London ruled that whyte had not disclosed his directors ban as if he did, ticketus argued they wouldn't have gave him the money. IMO it was no coincidence the police raided whytes home and business residences following the ruling. This was also reported on national radio this morning and its tick tock for whyte. This should also be good as should bring out the truth why HMRC liquidated the holding company as the whole debacle should be exposed!!

[Dutchy 1,200]

So who was this guy, Donald Muir I think it was that put on the Rangers board and was the guy that Walter was referring to in the main.

A man that had connections to other septic minded people I remember at the time.

And I'm not sure a bank can liquidate a company, but I'm sure someone can put me right about that.

They certainly can create the conditions and that is exactly what they've done, IMO.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Lloyds could have liquidated rangers at any point following the merger with bank of Scotland in 2008.They didn't and worked with SDM to get the debt down to a manageable level after his mis-management. Lloyds had no further involvement once they got their cash as they were SDM bankers not whyte. The "blame" IMO lies with SDM and ticketus for not doing proper due diligence and ticketus subsequently giving whyte the money to buy rangers. So, Whyte then paid off Lloyds and that was the end of their involvement. Even if they had asked whyte where he got his money from and, perhaps they did, the chain would have ended at ticketus who are a reputable company. The high court in London ruled that whyte had not disclosed his directors ban as if he did, ticketus argued they wouldn't have gave him the money. IMO it was no coincidence the police raided whytes home and business residences following the ruling. This was also reported on national radio this morning and its tick tock for whyte. This should also be good as should bring out the truth why HMRC liquidated the holding company as the whole debacle should be exposed!!

I don't think Lloyds could have pushed for liquidation if we were meeting payments mate. Even if they could have, their would be no gain for them. Their debt would be basically wiped out. They would get a pittance of a return from the CVL. Does not make sense.

Lloyds were helping Lloyds, they didn't care about us.

[JCDBigBear 10,825]

Murray "had to" get the £18m debt with Lloyds dealt with, a debt which was being reduced year on year and Whyte agreed to deal with.

Whyte's lost his court case against Ticketus, who now have a court's vindication of their claim to be duped. The figure involved was about the same as the original Lloyds debt.

Murray last year received a £117.7m injection from Lloyds, in exchange for equity in his group, which then reduced a £636m group debt to £470m. MIH had a "huge and exceptional write-off of £59m" for the sale of Rangers. I take that to mean the asset value of Rangers to MIH.

The HMRC EBT potential debt will also have influenced Lloyds in a straighforward business sense but that was not and has not been realised.

Did Lloyds unfairly target us and our debt? More qualified posters than I will hopefully outline that, and bring substance, rather than merely my amateur suspicions and speculations. Was there such a strong business case for getting us off the MIH balance sheet from Lloyds persective?

Did Murray know about Ticketus, thus meaning that he wasn't "duped"?

What dialogue took place between Murray and Lloyds in relation to debt? This must be a substantial interaction given Walter's assertion about the bank running the club.

Ultimately, what role did Lloyds, a huge financial organisation with contacts and partners all over the country, play in Whyte's involvement and what did they know of Ticketus.

From HMRC to Lloyds and Whyte, among many others, there seems to have been a tapestry of unlikely or unusual events that have all befallen Rangers. If you could have put an accumulator on how much HMRC focused on our EBTs more than others, how harshly we were dealt with in relation to our debt with Lloyds and how cavalier Whyte's stewardship was, no bookmaker would have expected you to walk back in. Indeed, they'd almost certainly suspect some form of fiscal match-fixing.

Why did Lloyds not support us until the point that HMRC forced administration? Surely they would not be forced into accepting the HMRC debt, if the EBT case had went against us. Surely that would have been the rational point for administration if necessary, which of course, was by no means necessary. Or was it that it would have fallen on the whole MIH empire? Would that vindicate their stance? Does it mean that Murray was more responsible than the Lloyds influence is said to suggest?

These are all crucial aspects of the major elements in the narrative of our traumas up to administration. It looks like the police are sniffing around these very areas. We can only hope that they are and that they find the answers we need.

When all this is explained, Whyte's role and interaction with Green will be clearer, one way or another. Until then, the media will dance around any rumour or accusation from Whyte, regardless of its vacuous content.

The bigger story in terms of wrong-doing and its role in explaining how we got to where we are, is being overlooked to focus on accusations from the least credible person in the whole saga against the man who is currently representing and working for the club. Granted Green needs to be more guarded with certain remarks, but no court case has found him liable for a £17m loan received by means of deception. He hasn't single-handedly destroyed a historic Scottish institution either.

It's funny how Green appears to be the bogey man to certain elements of the media when courts and judges repeatedly clear Rangers and have also found one of those responsible for our woes guilty. A certain narrative is more important than the truth in Scotland. That's another depressing verdict which brings no satisfaction with the vindication that it delivers.

Donald Muir (the Lloyds man on the board) was also on the board of other MIH companies. He was Lloyds man at MIH. The debt level at MIH had to come down and Lloyds forced Murray into selling property and steel assets as well as RFC. Lloyds had every right to be concerned about the RFC debt level. The £18m wasn't what concerned them it was the uncertainty of the EBT case. Can you blame them for that concern? An additional debt of a possible £75m is not what they wanted. Let's face it, the case isn't closed yet as HMRC appealed.

We can't hold Lloyds responsible unless they knew that Whyte was breaking any rules or laws. Donald Muir is the man who should be interviewed on that score.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Donald Muir (the Lloyds man on the board) was also on the board of other MIH companies. He was Lloyds man at MIH. The debt level at MIH had to come down and Lloyds forced Murray into selling property and steel assets as well as RFC. Lloyds had every right to be concerned about the RFC debt level. The £18m wasn't what concerned them it was the uncertainty of the EBT case. Can you blame them for that concern? An additional debt of a possible £75m is not what they wanted. Let's face it, the case isn't closed yet as HMRC appealed.

We can't hold Lloyds responsible unless they knew that Whyte was breaking any rules or laws. Donald Muir is the man who should be interviewed on that score.

Of course we can hold lloyds responsible. They don't need to have known whyte was going to break laws, if they forced the sale, whitewashing any proper checks, which resulted in the club being handed over to a crook who conned the other creditors then they were wrong!

Any interference which was purely self serving, which encouraged irresponsible behaviour was wrong. Lloyd might have inherited the mess, but that's what happens when they buy over another company. You have to take the good with the bad.

[JCDBigBear 10,825]

Of course we can hold lloyds responsible. They don't need to have known whyte was going to break laws, if they forced the sale, whitewashing any proper checks, which resulted in the club being handed over to a crook who conned the other creditors then they were wrong!

Any interference which was purely self serving, which encouraged irresponsible behaviour was wrong. Lloyd might have inherited the mess, but that's what happens when they buy over another company. You have to take the good with the bad.

Rubbish. I repeat, we can't hold Lloyds responsible unless they were aware of wrongdoing. They pushed Murray into lowering debt throughout his businesses. If you saw a potential increase of debt of £75m against your company wouldn't you want out and pronto? Lloyds inherited the problem from HBOS and wanted to reduce the overall MIH debt. If you are certain of Lloyds culpability then let's see the proof.

If you are going to place blame at least ensure you have proper evidence and the correct culprit.

[Big Al 55 9,252]

We were one of the better performing sections of the Murray empire. I have no doubt the issue was related to the potential liability for the BTC rather than the £18M debt. That completely crippled us for years.

[Allanger 625]

If Lloyds had looked at us as a standalone company we may have had more wriggle room.They were always looking at the bigger picture which tied us into the murray group where they were determined to cut borrowing. Even if we could show we were still a long term viable company Lloyds were not interested.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,547]

We were one of the better performing sections of the Murray empire. I have no doubt the issue was related to the potential liability for the BTC rather than the £18M debt. That completely crippled us for years.

We were only performing well because of European income, without that we were pretty much financially fucked

Had whyte not illegally paid off lloyds mccoists team last season would have been destroyed the minute malmo pumped us

We were damned if he did, damned if he didn't

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Rubbish. I repeat, we can't hold Lloyds responsible unless they were aware of wrongdoing. They pushed Murray into lowering debt throughout his businesses. If you saw a potential increase of debt of £75m against your company wouldn't you want out and pronto? Lloyds inherited the problem from HBOS and wanted to reduce the overall MIH debt. If you are certain of Lloyds culpability then let's see the proof.

If you are going to place blame at least ensure you have proper evidence and the correct culprit.

No offence mate, but you don't appear to be reading my posts correctly.

I have stated I don't think any evidence will be found of wrongdoing by Lloyds. This might be because they didn't commit anything to paper, or it might be because they did nothing wrong. I'm not sure of what one of these it would be.

However, IF, and I stress the 'IF' Lloyds told Murray to Sell to Whyte and make sure that nothing came up in due diligence to hinder the sale or they would pull the credit for the rest of MIH, then they have acted irresponsibly, immorally and potentially illegally.

[st1965 14]

Big al good to see you recognise that the main problem was the HMRC:-)

[JCDBigBear 10,825]

No offence mate, but you don't appear to be reading my posts correctly.

I have stated I don't think any evidence will be found of wrongdoing by Lloyds. This might be because they didn't commit anything to paper, or it might be because they did nothing wrong. I'm not sure of what one of these it would be.

However, IF, and I stress the 'IF' Lloyds told Murray to Sell to Whyte and make sure that nothing came up in due diligence to hinder the sale or they would pull the credit for the rest of MIH, then they have acted irresponsibly, immorally and potentially illegally.

Your last paragraph is what I was saying previously with regard to illegality. The police enquiry into the takeover should reveal all.

[Dutchy 1,200]

Donald Muir being Lloyds man at MIH doesn't explain why the fuck he was sitting in on the Rangers board, unless he was overseeing something we've not been told about?

[JCDBigBear 10,825]

Donald Muir being Lloyds man at MIH doesn't explain why the fuck he was sitting in on the Rangers board, unless he was overseeing something we've not been told about?

He was on the board of a number of MIH companies on behalf of Lloyds. It wasn't just RFC.

[Dutchy 1,200]

He was on the board of a number of MIH companies on behalf of Lloyds. It wasn't just RFC.

Yeah! OK, but why?

[st1965 14]

Mitre even if they did recommend selling to whyte, it is up to MIH to do the due diligence before sealing the deal, not Lloyds. The "money chain" will end up with ticketus who also should have done the due dillegence on whyte before giving him the money.