The following post comes about as a result of the research and work put in by Auldheid.
He has drafted the submission to FIFA detailed below after closely looking at their rules, and taking on board the points contained in the Glasnost “Golden Rule” blog. TSFM has attached the blog’s name to the report since the overwhelming – but not unanimous – view of our readership is that the SFA and the SPL have again gotten themselves into an almighty and embarrassingly amateur fankle over this issue.
We believe that tens of thousands of football fans will be lost to the game if the outcome of the LNS enquiry is not perceived to be commensurate with the scope and extent of the rule breaking that LNS found had taken place. In view of this, we believe that we have to do what we can to explore all possibilities for justice for those who love the game so much and yet are utterly disillusioned by recent events.
LNS is not being questioned here. He has found that RFC were guilty as charged by the SPL.
What is being questioned is the SFA’s crucial – and seemingly conflicted – role in the LNS enquiry, as is the effectiveness of LNS’s recommended sanction as either a deterrent or an upholder of sporting integrity.
It came to our notice last week that FIFA have created a web site at
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
that tells us that FIFA have implemented a regulatory framework which is intended to ensure that all statutory rules, rules of conduct and internal guidelines of FIFA are respected and complied with.
In support of that regulatory framework FIFA have set up the above site as a reporting mechanism by means of which inappropriate behaviour and infringements of the pertinent regulations may be reported.
FIFA say that their jurisdiction encompasses misconduct that (1) relates to match manipulation; (2) occurs in or affects more than one confederation, so that it cannot adequately be addressed by a single confederation; or (3) would ordinarily be addressed by a confederation or association, but, under the particular facts at issue, has not been or is unlikely to be dealt with appropriately at that level.
Discussions arising from the previous blog on TSFM, “Gilt Edged Justice”, which was published after Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) ruled on the registration of Rangers players who had contractual side letters that were not disclosed to the SFA as part of their registration, suggest that there may be possible unfortunate consequences for football arising from the evidence presented by the SFA to the LNS enquiry that informed its findings on registration and consequent eligibility. There is also a question of the propriety of the SFA providing evidence on an issue which could have had a negative impact on them had it been found that they had failed to carrying out their registration duties with due rigour over a period of ten years when the existence of EBTs was known to officials within the SFA.
On the basis that the LNS findings require that registration rules be clarified by FIFA and rewritten globally if necessary to remove any ambiguity and under clause 3 above, this appears to be an issue that the FIFA should examine and that the SFA cannot address.
The following report has therefore been submitted by TSFM on behalf of its readers to FIFA drawing on the content and debate following the “Gilt Edged Justice” blog in respect of the possible footballing consequences of the LNS enquiry.
The hope is that by speaking for so many supporters, FIFA will give the TSFM submission some weight, but individuals are free of course to make their own points in their own way. We await acknowledgement of the submission.
The report Submitted to FIFA is as follows;
This report was prepared on behalf of the 10,000-strong readership of The Scottish Football Monitor at http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/
It is our belief that FIFA general rules of conduct were breached by the SFA and their employees in both creating and then advising The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) enquiry into the non disclosure of full payment information to the Scottish Football Association (SFA) by Rangers F.C during a period of player registration over 10 years from 2000.We believe that although the issue has been addressed by the SFA the particular facts at issue suggest that it has not been dealt with appropriately and we therefore ask FIFA to investigate. The facts at issue are that the process and advice given failed to uphold sporting integrity, and that a conflict of interest was at play.
We believe the advice provided and the enquiry set up, where SFA both advised and is the appellant body, breaches not only the integrity the registration rules were intended to uphold, but also totally undermines the integrity of the SFA in breach of General Conduct rules 1, 2 and 4. (See below.)
1. Firstly we believe that the advice supplied to LNS that an incorrectly registered player was eligible to play as long as the registration was accepted by the SFA however unwittingly, undermines the intent of the SPL/SFA rules on player registration and so undermines the integrity of football in three ways.
• It incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
• A club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivized to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
• And most importantly, it incentivises fraud. By deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). Then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
2. Secondly we believe the process followed was inappropriate due to a Conflict of Interest. Had the LNS enquiry not ruled on the basis of advice supplied by The SFA, they and those persons advising the LNS enquiry, could have been subjected to censure and the SFA to potential compensation claims had LNS found that the players were indeed ineligible to play and results then been annulled as was SFA practice when an ineligible player played.
3. Finally we contend that a law should not be applied according to its literal meaning if to do so would lead to an absurdity or a manifest injustice or in this case loss of football integrity.
See http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/4. We therefore ask FIFA to investigate both the process used and advice given to Lord Nimmo Smith to satisfy themselves that FIFA’s intentions with regard to upholding the integrity of football under FIFA rules have not been seriously damaged by the LNS findings and also to reassure Scottish football supporters that the integrity of our game has not been sacrificed by the very authority in whose care it has been placed to promote the short term cause of commercialism to the games long term detriment.
General Rules of Conduct (These are taken from the FIFA web site itself and can be found as part of completing the submission process)
1. Persons bound by this Code are expected to be aware of the importance of their duties and concomitant obligations and responsibilities.
2. Persons bound by this Code are obliged to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to them.
3. N/A
4. Persons bound by this Code may not abuse their position in any way, especially to take advantage of their position for private aims or gains.
Ah… the wheels are starting to fall into place now, and the Sevco 5088/Scotland question has been well and truly answered.
Is this the distraction for the assets to be moved to RIFC from TRFC under the guise of making it ‘safer’. With money fast running out for TRFC they should have just enough time to rake in the season ticket sales before they dump TRFC minus the assets to ‘real Rangers men’ (i wonder how much 1 3rd division title is worth?)
RIFC will be a company worth probably 30m (based on the ownership of their assets). Green, Whyte, Ticketus (come on, you know they are hiding behind one of these investment co’s) and co will cash out their shares making millions. RIFC will rent the assets back to TRFC and make a small fortune over the proceeding years.
Meanwhile – TRFC will have to downsize to have any chance of continuing.
What can I say… we did warn them.
The big question though – how will Regan, Oglive, Doncaster and Longmuir get out of this one – what happened to the due diligence and what guarentees were given re: fit and proper people and ownership?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 22:11
none of the CCCS (continuous credit card scheme) options include friendlies – or they didn’t when the renewal forms were sent out.
——
A guy on RM is saying the forms had a tick box for “all home non-league games”. Previously, they had a different tick-box for “friendlies” but it appears they’ve all been lumped into one option now.
A little trick that will only work effectively once – plenty bears grumbling about the perceived sleight of hand on RM. I suspect Mr Green was saving it up for when they needed a few quid to get by. Evidently they now do, hence this pointless (and, notably, relatively cheap in costs to TRFC) Linfield game.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 08:00
“There’s 65m shares issued with about 7m owned by fans.The price right now is around the issue price of 70p.
That leaves 58m worth approx £40m,probably a reasonable value if there is £21m in the bank and the property assets.”
==================
That figure of £21m was in the bank on 31 December. Since then they have bought some properties, paid off the football debts, and burned £2.5m a month on wages and running costs, with very little money coming in.
There can’t be even £10m left in the bank right now, so maybe the real money men have told Charles to get a grip on costs. Which would explain the activity of the past week.
In purely money terms, the time to ditch TRFC was 31 December, but if they had done that, they would have had a large group of very angry shareholders with a valid complaint that they had been misled by the prospectus.
They have to be seen to be trying to run a football club, at least until the cash has gone. They can then tell the bears that they gave it a go, but it just didn’t add up. That would leave the shareholders with just the properties.
Some “Rangers men” will pick up TRFC for £1, and pay a rent for Ibrox until they go bust. The car park must generate a profit so long as football is being played at Ibrox. The real jewel in the crown is Murray (Moses?) Park. If planning permission for housing could be obtained for that, then the sky’s the limit. You can be sure that expert advice has already been obtained on the planning front.
The money men have a fully developed exit strategy, there can be no doubt about that. I agree that the season ticket money is worth waiting for by now. As soon as that is in the RIFC bank account, and it might just repay the money pumped in to TRFC by RIFC during the first part of the year, then the sooner they ditch TRFC, the more money they will make.
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 22:04
Another excellent blog BRTH.
Personally I know nothing about the Green Brigade and have only heard of them through reading this blog. There is something a bit sinister about the name, but why judge a book by it’s cover? and from what little I’ve read, they seem to be a group of over-zealous fans, who over-step the mark occasionally, and get up the noses of police, opposition fans and even Celtic. But haven’t the authorities noticed that, until the kettling incident, and a problem at Dundee, there’s been very little (violent) trouble in the whole of Scottish football involving large numbers of fans, for quite some time? There will, of course, always be occasional, though still unacceptable, trouble, involving small numbers of, or individual, fans, that will always mar our game. But that’s not what this legislation was brought in to address.
I have no idea whether or not the Green Brigade intended any unlawful activity on the day of the kettling incident, but I have read nothing from the police side suggesting they were acting on information received. I do know, without any doubt, that many TRFC fans have broken the law, on a number of occasions this season, with very few arrests and no action from the police or SFA against that club. Perhaps it’s just a case of it’s relatively easy to kettle a large group of supporters, on the move, in the streets, than it is to tackle a large group of supporters within a football ground with nowhere to move them to (meaning the police themselves will be trapped), and when the police want to create an example, they will invariably take the easy option (for them).
Of course, with a large majority of Glasgow police preferring the blue team from Ibrox, and with pressure from Holyrood to show they are acting on the new legislation, it could be they felt compelled to flex their muscle against some football fans, and chose a group who had been vociferous in their witty, and oh so accurate, public condemnation of the club that majority hold so dear.
But do I think there was any bias involved in the decision to make an example of the Green Brigade? Of course I do!
On the legislation brought in specifically to ‘tackle’ football related problems, we only have to look at the legislation that was brought into tackle violence at football grounds prior to Hillsborough, treating football fans as herd animals, and how that led directly to so many deaths on that saddest of days. Treating a section of society as somehow inferior can only lead to disaster, and that lesson still hasn’t been learned by government, and I doubt it ever will be. My opinion has always been that it was the legislation, and resulting caging of fans, that led to the deaths at Hillsborough. The ineffective policing, and subsequent cover-ups, only exacerbated the problem.
I think, with the latest Sun articles, it is now time for BDO to seriously look at the gratuitous alienation question
Well ……here we go again.
I wonder what the professional company known as Duff and Phelp’s are saying about the latest revelations – after all they were handsomely paid to carry out liquidation to the best of their abilities.
Sorry …..cut off mid stride!!
Freeze all bank account’s now for everyone that has been involved in this saga.
Padlock the gates to Ibrox, liquidate the assets,and give the creditor’s some money back. We all know both Individuals and more so the country needs the resources, the last thing that is needed is ANOTHER drain on society with yet another court case.
Neepheid, Torrejohnbhoy, Stephensanph and others
I’d say bang on the money……….We’re seeing the start of the end game and the blue club fans, the media, the administrators and the rest of us are in play.
……………………………………………………………………………………..
Corsica shed light that this was a coordinated group of people who allegedly did not want to work together.
And this group were there to implement a plan conceived before Craig Whyte ever got involved to the person who brought him in.
Corsica’s wee group had a plan since day one and an end focus.
And as they say, like in comedy, “the essence of good spivery is timing”.
They’ve had to make and mend a bit when the bampots led a mini revolt but they were always sure of some kind of pay out having bought the assets at a ridiculous price.
So all they had to do was agree an end date.
Dec 31st probably offered them most revenue but also the most hassle downstream so was never the plan.
Season ticket money time is probably next best date.
So from now on in we’ll see their PR roller coaster kick in.
None of us will know who is friends, enemies, allies etc until well after the end play.
Tracks will be covered and red herrings galore.
And the fans will be manipulated for their money.
But sit back and enjoy it – it really will be entertaining.
And then the money and assets will be gone/ realigned/ whatever else you want to call it.
Spivs will clean up and Ticketus will get its money back.
Make no mistake a new poorer blue entity will re-emerge with no assets but even more righteos indignation.
And finally, finally some people who signed the 5 way agreement will look foolish but maybe Mr Longmuir will have a new job at the new, new blue club.
torrejohnbhoy
That lot give spivs a bad name.
saskya1888 says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 09:20
Quantcast
Well ……here we go again.
I wonder what the professional company known as Duff and Phelp’s are saying about the latest revelations – after all they were handsomely paid to carry out liquidation to the best of their abilities.
=============
They also sold off the assets of RFC (IL) at a knock down price to Sevco 5088. This makes interesting reading.
http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fraud_protection/phoenix_company_fraud
From our hero Green in the Sun, regarding his converations with Whyte-
“There was no agreement. Well, there is not a bit of paper where we agreed this and he needed that and we signed it. ”
I think Green means that agreed terms verbally with Green, but it wasn’t backed up with a signed agreement. Green thinks that gets him off the hook. Which may well be correct in English law. But in Scots law, a verbal agreement is enforceable, is it not? And Whyte has the tapes- together, now, with Green’s own admission that he just told Whyte whatever Whyte wanted to hear. If this ever goes to a Scottish court, there could be fun and games galore.
Is this extract from the Interim accounts potentially actionable? Is this what Craigies on about?
16. Related Party Transactions
The following balances were novated from Sevco 5088 Limited (a company of which Charles Green was the sole shareholder and hence a related party) on 29 May 2012 to RFCL, hence the dates are before incorporation of RFCL and RIFC plc:
Novation:
The substitution of a new contract for an old one. The new agreement extinguishes the rights and obligations that were in effect under the old agreement.
A novation ordinarily arises when a new individual assumes an obligation to pay that was incurred by the original party to the contract. It is distinguishable from the situation that occurs when another individual makes a guarantee that a debtor will pay what he or she owes to a creditor. In the case of a novation, the original debtor is totally released from the obligation, which is transferred to someone else. The nature of the transaction is dependent upon the agreement between the parties.
A novation also takes place when the original parties continue their obligation to one another, but a new agreement is substituted for the old one.
Andrew
I read that before when “phoenixing” was being widely discussed.
In my mind that is exactly what was allowed to happen.
I firmly believe that this entire debacle goes far higher than mere football governance. Government has been wholly complicit and compliant in this matter. The priority last year was the commonwealth games – where they could not have tolerated any form of embarrassing disruption; appease the ranks and worry about the fallout after the event.
Interestingly, next year we have the referendum…….what to do to get as many votes as possible. It’s tough at the top as they say…….let’s see which way they go
I’m still stuck on the three Russian girls line
Bill Struth would no doubt turn in his grave.
Streuth !
Such a noble institution too.
Neepheid
As I understand Scots Contract Law you are absolutely correct.
http://www.contractsandagreements.co.uk/law-and-verbal-agreements.html
Should be very interesting indeed!
Is this when Ticketus finally emerges into the daylight again? Because I, for one, do not believe that that they have walked away from £18m with nary a backward glance.
Green was half right. If the SFA are not bankrupt at the moment, well then it’s only a matter of time specially when this s..t hits the fan. Due deligence my ass!
Scottish footballers striking in solidarity over the dismissal of their fellow player Francisco Sandaza ?
Nah…..didn’t think so.
A verbal agreement would surely need several independent witnesses no?
A couple of points worth making.
It seems that Charles Green & Craig Whyte both now agree that D&P sold the Rangers FC assets to Sevco 5088 and not directly to Sevco Scotland.
Both Charles Green & Craig Whyte now seem to agree that Sevco 5088 was a company owned in part by Craig Whyte.
If this is all true, The pending question of D&P’s conflict of interest would seem to be answered.
With all of this in mind, today’s revelations have dispelled any previously held doubt I had about BDO’s determination to claim gratuitous alienation against Sevco 5088.
It is not entirely clear what particular mechanism was used; but it would seem likely that Sevco Scotland lent Sevco 5088 the money to purchase the assets from Rangers. Sevco Scotland will have then purchased the assets from Sevco 5088 for a similar consideration.
If BDO do claim gratuitous alienation (and since Sevco Scotland were clearly aware of the circumstances) Sevco Scotland cannot claim that their purchase of assets from Sevco 5088 was made “in good faith”.
In these circumstances, and if the sale of assets from Rangers FC to Sevco 5088 can be reduced (cancelled), so too can the sale of assets between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland.
Which will all be very interesting for the SFA if/when the assets (including trade marks) are all returned to the original club to be re-sold elsewhere; but Rangers original SFA membership is held by Sevco Scotland.
The question that occurs to me now is: can the next New Rangers be formed in time for the start of next season?
rantinrobin says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:39
0 0 Rate This
Scottish footballers striking in solidarity over the dismissal of their fellow player Francisco Sandaza ?
Nah…..didn’t think so.
=====
The silence from the PFA has been deafening. Where’s that Fraser Wishart when you need him?
Senior says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:39
0 0 Rate This
A verbal agreement would surely need several independent witnesses no?
=====
Not necessarily, the court would weigh up all admissible evidence, the surrounding circumstances, etc and decide the matter on the balance of probabilities. Which makes Green’s statements to the Sun extremely foolish. I’ve no idea whether Whyte’s tapes are admissible as evidence in a Scottish court. Since Green says that he was aware that he was being taped, I don’t see why not.
neepheid says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:52
0 0 Rate This
Senior says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:39
0 0 Rate This
A verbal agreement would surely need several independent witnesses no?
=====
Not necessarily, the court would weigh up all admissible evidence, the surrounding circumstances, etc and decide the matter on the balance of probabilities. Which makes Green’s statements to the Sun extremely foolish. I’ve no idea whether Whyte’s tapes are admissible as evidence in a Scottish court. Since Green says that he was aware that he was being taped, I don’t see why not.
======================
If the Sun have quoted Mr Green accurately, I expect that the reporters notes and recordings will be given Production Numbers relatively soon.
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 21:36
22 1 i
Rate Down
Arabest 21.14…
………
They didn’t survive
————————————————–
Touche Paul! 😉
Good Morning,
Even if the fundamentals of the two articles prepared by the Sun newspaper are correct, then Scottish Football is in a very dangerous place this morning.
Let’s be clear– the first article appeared with the headline Charles Green played upfront for me– Craig Whyte– and the second contained a more expansive explanation by Green as to why Whyte’s claims were rubbish and delusional— thus with a shift in emphasis towards the Green version of events.
However, even the shortest and most cursory examination of this story and the comments allegedly made take us back in time and leave the most awkward of questions.
It would appear to be undisputed that Green came into this whole mix at the instance of Whyte. He was introduced as a frontman for Whyte and his crew to buy back the hulk of Glasgow Rangers in some shape or form.
That was his job.
It is also not disputed that Whyte could not be seen to be anywhere near this purchase and so his connection to the whole deal was hidden— hidden from Rangers Fans, Hidden from the footballing authorities and indeed the press.
Now, let’s stop there– go back to all those reports of negotiations– pre CVA rejection—post CVA rejection– when Charles Green was supposedly meeting with Stuart Regan, Neil Doncaster and anyone else.
Were they told that Green was an “agent” for Mr Whyte or were they told that he was the prinicpal, the main man, with backers in the far east and so on?
Where do the men at the top of Scottish Football stand on what their understanding was a year or so ago?
What about Duff and Phelps? What was their knowledge and belief? Were they mislead in anyway as to Green’s position compared to Whyte’s?– and from there we have to ask the question just how and in what way did they report the sale of assets to the court to whom they are answerable?
However, let’s move on because it seems from the Sun report that Whyte and his colleagues asked Zeus to raise money on their behalf so that the assets could be bought.
Does anyone see a denial of this suggestion either in the article or from Charles Green?
Further, it is suggested that Green and others will be Whyte & Co’s “representatives” on the board of the purchasing vehicle– namely Sevco.
Again– can we see any denial that this is so?
No– if anything Green confirms this position and says that this was the case but— and the next bit is crucial— all of that changed when the CVA was rejected and liquidation was imminent!
Well examine that if you dare:
Does anyone remember a deal being struck with D&P which would go through one way if the CVA were approved and another if the CVA were rejected?
Green trumpeted that the CVA was essential to keep the history but stressed that there would be an asset buy if that did not happen– remember those who said it was essential to keep the big hoose open– and that this was guaranteed by Green doing a one way or another deal.
In any event, the assets were in fact bought by the very company that was set up to be a vehicle for Whyte- but fronted on his behalf by Green– and only later were the assets transferred to another very similar sounding company.
No matter which version of events you choose to believe– if there is in fact a difference between the two— what both parties seem to confirm was that the entire transaction to purchase assets from Rangers PLC and gain a place anywhere in Scottish Football started out and revolves around either Whyte and Green acting together or Green using the Vehicle that was set up by Whyte for his own purposes and failing to mention the initial role of Craig Whyte in the same company and finance raising structure.
That being so– and given that The Rangers Football Club have been given conditional and extraordinary status in terms of their legal standing within the football structure in Scotland— do the SFA, the SPL and the SFL– and all the chairmen who make up those bodies– do they feel that they have been given full and frank disclosure by Mr Green when he was making his representations to them re membership and admittance to the league structure?
Has Charles Green played with a straight bat? Has he been open and transparent in his dealings with Scottish Football let alone Craig Whyte, and does the most recent article suggest that the football authorities should look into this matter further?
Also, it has been apparent for some time now that Mr Green has a tendency to make statements and pronouncements that are either later contradicted or which do not come to pass or fruition. There are many instances of him proclaiming many a thing and taking a standpoint which later turn out to be not quite correct.
is this something that should be a concern to Scottish Football especially when we are repeatedly told that the well being of Rangers is essential for Scottish Football going forward?
Neepheid
Having just updated a wee spreadsheet of my own last night in which Ibrox was sold in year 5 to fill the black hole generated to put them back in the top tier with a lease back, your point leapt out at me. Why not do it a lot sooner?
That would be when they top the next division they find themselves in, lets say 2014, in order to fund a team capable of reaching and staying in the top flight.
It would then be a question of what they get for the assets to give them an exit profit.
If you e mail tsfm asking to forward to me I’ll give you a copy of spreadsheet.
The biggy is can they see through to summer 2014?
Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, Cragie Whyte, Craigie Whyte, Craigie Whyte, Craigie, Craigie Whyte!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeqtAB1WgEw
And he’s got the tapes………………:) always a hero!
Senior says
Not that I think it will ever get there for obvious reasons , but wouldn’t it be really interesting to see all the major players in this “boorach” to actually have to go to a court and horror of horrors “swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth” . I would pay good money to see that, it might even restore our very own JC’s faith in the legal system .
So groundhog day coming soon, will SPL clubs refuse entry a second time ? Ally must do walking away if he is not part of this . Or will he be pied piper for the masses and go between for the next lot. Will it be circle complete, or is there more to be creamed yet.
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 11:10
I agree that there are issues for the Scottish football authorities to deal with, but I can already detect the sounds of vigorous brushing and the corner of the carpet at Hampden being lifted. Although how anyone can still walk on that carpet is one life’s mysteries, there’s so much stuff been swept under it.
I believe that Strathclyde’s finest (now Police Scotland) have been investigating Whyte’s acquisition of RFC from Murray for at least a year now. Surely they must now extend that investigation to cover the events surrounding the acquisition of the assets by Green at a knockdown price? I’m sure Whyte will be only too happy to assist.
If I had any shares in this shambles, I’d be heading for the exit today- if I could find a buyer that is.
Am I wrong in thinking that whatever version of events is true the bottom line is that Craig Whyte placed Rangers into administration. He then (using his own financial people) sold the assets to himself (using Green as a front man) for a fraction of what they were worth. Green knew exactly what was happening and played along, albeit he claims he was conning Whyte at the time.
For heavens sake, are there no limits on what these people are allowed to do, whether it be in a business sense or a footballing one.
Is no one in authority going to actually take any meaningful action.
justshatered says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 22:09
Quantcast
neepheid says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 19:42
I also think that RIFC is loaning £1M a month to TRFC however they are never going to get this money back. So why lose £1M a month.
This is also baffling. Why, if you are such a good venture capitalist, blow £1M a month that you could just as easily hoover up with a bonus.
I also think that RIFC will be charging a high interest rate however if the assets are now with RIFC then when TRFC goes bust the assets will remain untouched so again why blow £1M a month.
Is there something else going on here or are they really just poor businessmen.
____________________________________________________
The picture you paint is, as far as we can tell, a highly likely one, where hard nosed businessmen (in their own eyes) have come together to soak up what they can from a dying football club. If this scenario is, more or less, correct, then I suspect it’s gone wrong somewhere along the way, probably as much because the main participants aren’t as clever as they thought they were, and for one reason or another events are dictating their plan’s progress. We know that the big money men and institutions are all locked in with regards to their shares and there could be other things on the go that are all preventing them getting out with their booty. Remember, too, that Green is sitting pretty with a nice salary, bonus plan, and expenses so whatever happens he’s making money with no initial investment. I suspect the original plan was to run the club for 18 to 24 months, watching the cash roll in and the property portfolio rise, then search for a buyer, or just bale out with all the goodies.
Things haven’t gone according to plan, they probably expected everyone involved in football just to roll-over, and they would have, without our, the fans, intervention. Possibly the ‘institutional investors have, to a large extent, entrusted their money to Green & Co and now regret it, but can do nothing about it and won’t admit it – they will never admit it – and Green & Co are so full of themselves that they can’t see that they are out of their depths. Green couldn’t even make a go of business when there was a boom, how on earth can he expect to do it in a recession? In short, Green and his pals are no more than a syndicate of gamblers, who thought they’d worked out a plan to beat the table, and now can’t stop believing that it will still come good even though they are losing a million a month!
I suspect that to get out now, with substantial funds, would be impossible without committing some sort of fraud or other illegal act, and they quite possibly don’t want to do that. They might be immoral, bloodsucking spivs, but they probably hope to be able to carry on with their entrepreneurial skills, ruining businesses and lives, for some years yet!
Neepheid
Ah the old brush and carpet trick at Hampden– but will that really work, and can the boys over there really afford to stand back and allow another massive mess to develop at Ibrox without protecting themselves and their reputation?
If any of this ever gets anywhere near a court– civil or criminal—- what was said to the footballing authorities and by whom becomes not only crucial but public.
On the face of it– Green appears to be very close to a misrepresentation of his position and motives to Whyte and possibly others– very very close.
If Whyte has any evidence at all to back up his allegations then we are in for a hell of a legal ride through the courts.
Meanwhile– thousands of people continue to raise court actions against RBS because they feel they were not given the full or true picture by the directors– watch out for that ghost coming to haunt some well kent folk.
Conclusion from the Sun article?
Green cannot sustain a prolonged period of negative PR from the MSM
So he is now in the end game
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The MSM have reluctanttly concluded that
TRFC are firmly in the grip of Spivs
No serious money will be invested in infrastructure or players this year
The Sun may well focus on getting Green out
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The next tranche of ST income will be the Spivs exit cash.
If so
ST sales need to be maximised
This will need some dramatic announcements
like
… Additional ST cash needed to buy an SPL club ( complete with Boyd and Millar) and move it to Ibrox
… New Manager mentored by Cardigan
Well, it has all kicked off a bit this morning. The plate spinning can only continue so long before it all comes crashing down. Was this what Bomber knew? Better get some popcorn in.
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 11:34
0 0 Rate This
Neepheid
…
If any of this ever gets anywhere near a court– civil or criminal—- what was said to the footballing authorities and by whom becomes not only crucial but public.
On the face of it– Green appears to be very close to a misrepresentation of his position and motives to Whyte and possibly others– very very close.
If Whyte has any evidence at all to back up his allegations then we are in for a hell of a legal ride through the courts.
…
=====================================================
The Sun interview reads (to me) like a signed confession! It is surely reckless beyond imagination that he could have said what is being attributed to him.
If the Sun has quoted him verbatim, we are witnessing the beginning of his own personal downfall?
Expect a “clarification” statement very soon.
Mr Cosgrove
Will your msm colleagues be so keen to campaign for The Rangers being moved up a division under league reconstruction on a financial basis given the latest revelations in the Scottish Sun re the dubious business relationship between Charles Green and Craig Whyte?
At what point is an ethical line to be drawn between integrity and corruption?
allyjambo says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 09:03
re: Green Brigade
======================================================
It may be that I am misreading some of your comments but you seem to suggest the ‘Green Brigade’ mini-kettling and the Dundee incident involved violent trouble involving large numbers of fans.
Dundee was due to drunkeness of a relatively few Celtic supporters and any violence appears to have been more between themselves than anyone else. At the end of the day there were minimal arrests. These fans involved should never have been allowed into the stadium by all accounts as they were rolling drunk but the police apparently took a command decision it was better and easier to control them inside the stadium than allowing them to wander about Dundee.
The Green Brigade did make it clear well beforehand on various internet fan sites that they were going to march and nothing was going to stop their protest against both Celtic as a club and StrathPol over the treatment of fans and to support those who have been banned. If the police weren’t aware of what was intended then their Focus unit is useless and should be disbanded forthwith. With less than 200 demonstrators involved it’s hardly a large number of fans and as far as I can see there was no violence on their part
There may well have been bias in the way they were treated as opposed to ordinary citizens or fans but then tens of thousands of ordinary fans made their way to Parkhead that day without any violence or problems from other fans or the police. Whether I like it or not or even agree or disagree I fully recognise that when one gang tells another bigger gang that it doesn’t give a monkey about following the rules operated by the bigger gang then the bigger gang will exercise its authority.
For some time I have made comments about the breaches of civil liberties that appeared to be taking place against Rangers fans to begin with and then Celtic fans or at least certain sections. This is an area worthy of discussion and action but in my view the way to make progress isn’t by breaking the law as that plays into the hands of the police and legislators and actually will be used to justify the legislation being used.
Cardigans at the aye ready, same ole faces and maybe one new one coming up. SSN+1 (year).
Auldheid says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 11:14
3 0 Rate This
Neepheid
Having just updated a wee spreadsheet of my own last night in which Ibrox was sold in year 5 to fill the black hole generated to put them back in the top tier with a lease back, your point leapt out at me. Why not do it a lot sooner?
===============
Thanks ,I’ve emailed TSFM for a copy as you suggest, and let you have my observations later today.
@Galling fiver
same ole faeces more like.
neepheid says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 11:25
I’m with BRTH on no hiding place. It will no longer be the supporters of other clubs asking questions, it will be the supporters of ALL clubs asking who is responsible for protecting Scottish football from spivs, even the msm at large should be doing so..
When the SFA told Alex Thomson
” The SFA insist they are football’s umbrella body in the game but have no jurisdiction over the running of the SPL or any league for that matter:
“The Scottish FA has no jurisdiction over the competition rules of league bodies. Through the Professional Game Board, we can provide a forum for debate on matters such as league reconstruction.”
‘So they say they exist to provide debate on matters like league reconstruction but cannot interfere directly, they say they have no powers to do so.’
was it a Pontious Pilate act?
It is no longer acceptable to dodge responsibility (because that makes them accountable by being responsible) and if ever there was a reason to debate the role and purpose of the SFA in governing our game that time is now.
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4874544/EXCLUSIVE-The-Whyte-Tapes-Recording-1.html
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/8618534/
Ally McCoist asks Charles Green for answers as new Rangers row heads for court
Who will win? Mines on CG. Knives out.
” we only have to look at the legislation that was brought into tackle violence at football grounds prior to Hillsborough, treating football fans as herd animals, and how that led directly to so many deaths on that saddest of days. Treating a section of society as somehow inferior can only lead to disaster, and that lesson still hasn’t been learned by government, and I doubt it ever will be. ”
Well put, Allyjambo.
I suggest put this in an email and send it to Government, football authorities, and police forces around the country.
Is this another 5 way agreement. Basically we sell the assets of Sevco 5088 and split them between Charlie, Craigie, Ticketus and another couple of shysters in the shadows.
Never seen this coming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19976991
From october 2012 – worth refreshing your memory after teh Suns latest Spivfest
Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte has claimed he introduced Charles Green to Duff and Phelps as the administrators searched for a buyer for the club.
In a wide-ranging BBC interview, Mr Whyte said he and his advisors “went out and used our contacts” in London “to put a suitable deal together”.
Rangers chief executive Mr Green said Mr Whyte had painted “a misleading picture of what actually happened”.
He said his team contacted Mr Whyte as it thought his shares might be needed.
Rangers, under Whyte’s control, was forced into administration by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) on 14 February over non-payment of tax totalling about £14m.
Asset sale
After HMRC rejected proposals for a creditors agreement that would have allowed the old club to continue, administrators Duff and Phelps negotiated a sale of assets to a consortium led by Mr Green for £5.5m.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Yet again Craig Whyte’s version of events paints a misleading picture of what actually happened and it’s regrettable that the BBC is providing him with such a platform”
Charles Green
Rangers chief executive
He has since formed a new club, now playing in the Scottish Football League Third Division.
Speaking exclusively to BBC Scotland’s Chris McLaughlin, Whyte said he had played a key role in the sale.
“I was the one who found a buyer – it wasn’t Duff and Phelps,” he said.
“My colleagues in London – when no credible buyer was coming forward – went out and used our contacts in the city to find… to put a suitable deal together.”
When asked if he was the one who had brought Mr Green to the table, Whyte answered: “Absolutely. I introduced them to Duff and Phelps.”
Asked if his relationship with Charles Green and Rangers was okay, he replied: “Yeah, sure.
“I think given the public perception of me, people are keen to distance themselves from me publicly.
“But I have no problem with the current management of Rangers.”
‘Direct contact’
Mr Whyte’s version of events, however, is comprehensively disputed by Mr Green.
In a statement, the Rangers chief executive said: “Yet again Craig Whyte’s version of events paints a misleading picture of what actually happened and it’s regrettable that the BBC is providing him with such a platform.
“The facts are that direct contact was made by our consortium with Craig Whyte in the first instance as it appeared at that time that his shares would have to be secured in order for any purchase of the club to progress.
“I was not present when contact was initially made but subsequently met Craig Whyte, who introduced me to the administrator.”
Mr Green said he had “no previous association with Craig Whyte” and it was “misleading to suggest he ‘brought us in’.”
He added: “I was brought to the transaction by Imran Ahmad following Duff and Phelps contacting Zeus Capital in February, due to their experience in the football sector.”
Why nothing on the BBC website?
Recordings going up on the S*n website. Oh dearie me.
Sally – “I’ve got no doubts the press and media will be asking questions, as they rightly do, so I’d be very hopeful that once again our supporters can get answers they deserve.”
Aaaaaaaah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
By the way,It was Duff and Duffer that said Yorkie was a fit and proper person in their role (hahahaha,sorry)as administrators.What will Lord Hodge say when he reads about all this.
A famous film Director once said, “that a verbal agreement is not worth the paper it’s printed on”
It just seems so apt when you consider the spivs involved.
Well done Goosy,you have never wavered in your beliefs about what was happening and what would happen.
neepheid says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:52
Which makes Green’s statements to the Sun extremely foolish. I’ve no idea whether Whyte’s tapes are admissible as evidence in a Scottish court. Since Green says that he was aware that he was being taped, I don’t see why not.
——
This smells like the hold of a Broch trawler.
Why, indeed, would Mr Green state that he knew there was a good chance of him being taped? With this knowledge, he went on to say things which would form a permanent record of behind-the-scenes swindling.
Mr Green may play the part of a comedy clown, but I’m quite sure he isn’t extremely foolish.
Shirley this must all be part of the plan.
Spivs don’t do things to each other that will result in things being made public that they don’t want to be made public. Mr Whyte and Mr Green evidently had some sort of agreement in how matters would proceed. I should imagine that everything is proceeding according to that plan.
Meanwhile, I notice an offer of 0.68 per share this morning. It does appear that strenuous efforts are being made to keep the price above the 70p mark, but I sense a bit of desperate floundering (oh no, not back to the fishy puns again!).
To the Hampden three,messrs Doncaster ,Regan and Longmuir I would strongly suggest that you place as much distance as possible from your respective institutions and the institution which appears to be very much in toxic meltdown.
To all the football clubs in Scotland i would respectfully suggest you do the same.
A permanent embarassment and a permanent disgrace.
There fixed that for you Mr Archer.
Interesting articles from the Sun, and for once we get arguments from BOTH sides, but before I appear to be praising the Sun, we have to remember that this story was supposed to be going out 24 hours earlier; time out for Green’s response to be prepared by TRFC’s PR guru?
I would never believe Whyte, but if he does have written proof of what he claims, then Green is in some deep brown stuff, and what a distraction this is for him at a time he surely needs to be either; preparing his exit with his bag of swag, or planning for next season and convincing the bears to divvy up for STs. They’ll take some convincing now 😉 .
I like the Lawrence Delalio style defence of Green’s; ‘believe me; I lied (to Whyte)’. Not a very good reposte to Whyte’s claims, was it? He seems to be confirming what we’ve all been saying for quite some time; ie he’s a thoroughly dishonourable character and uses lies as one of his main business tools. In fact, lies seem to be such a basic tool for him that he seems happy to announce to the world that he lied in a multi-million pound deal to get his hands on something he might not otherwise have achieved. Such a nice man. Such nice men, all of them!
HirsutePursuit says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:41
If they can come to some arrangement with say Queens Park or Partick Thisltle to ground share, why not?
I have suggested before that it is the attachment to the Big Hoose that is preventing a proper resurrection (in the Christian belief sense rather than the Voodoo one.)
The difficulty is finding a blue leader not tainted by past associations who has sufficient credibility, integrity and expertise to rise again. Might even require a miracle. 😉
Sun releases first set of secretly recorded Craig Whyte/ Charles Green conversations. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4874544/EXCLUSIVE-The-Whyte-Tapes-Recording-1.html …
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 12:32
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:41
If they can come to some arrangement with say Queens Park or Partick Thisltle to ground share, why not?
I have suggested before that it is the attachment to the Big Hoose that is preventing a proper resurrection (in the Christian belief sense rather than the Voodoo one.)
The difficulty is finding a blue leader not tainted by past associations who has sufficient credibility, integrity and expertise to rise again. Might even require a miracle
—————————————–
The emotional attachment to Ibrox and it’s (sic) history is what persuaded the vast majority of the people to buy ST’s last year.
Without that they would have nothing that represented their views and desires. A Rangers without this baggage would be just another club floundering in the lower reaches of Scottish football – it’s the baggage that’s keeping them afloat.
Rangers without Ibrox would be like Ibrox without Rangers – cold and empty.
My my, it’s got a bit busy again! 🙂
ianagain says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 12:13
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/8618534/
_____________________________
Here’s the funniest bit from McCoist in that SkySports story:
“I’ve got no doubts the press and media will be asking questions, as they rightly do…………………”
Ask away, Jackson et al!
Senior says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:39
The Sun has just printed one, and that could well be enough. In fact, there is no need for witnesses to a verbal agreement, just an acknowledgement that it happened. From my Scots law studies of a great many years ago, I seem to remember that if someone can prove they carried out an act to the benefit of another, and that they would only do that for a payment or other benefit, then the court can, and has, accepted that a verbal contract was in place.
It is obviously not easy to prove the existence of a verbal contract, but not impossible, and what Green has said to the Sun would seem to make it more likely in this case. Now Green has shown himself to have been ‘duped’ by Scots Law in the past ie when he transferred the assets to Sevco 5088, an English based company, and had to re-transfer them to Sevco (Scotland). I’m pretty certain he has put his foot in it again because, like most English, and many Scots, he is completely unaware of this part of contract law in Scotland, and, trying to show how smart he is, and maybe to appease some bears too, was happy to show how he cheated Whyte out of his security and shares.
tomtomaswell says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 12:47
I would not call what is happening as “kept afloat” more the third fingered hand of the cartoon drowning man.
Their attachment is what is drowning them. Letting go is the answer.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 12:32
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 10:41
If they can come to some arrangement with say Queens Park or Partick Thisltle to ground share, why not?
================================
logically, that makes perfect sense – why be held to ransom etc.
However, football fans are emotional, not logical.
No Big Hoose, No Berz…………
So, how are we all thinking on the latest spiv bun fight??
they have concocted this together and it is working towards their own ends – thumbs up
there has been a fall out and it’s every spiv for themselves – thumb down
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 13:11
0 0 Rate This
tomtomaswell says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 12:47
I would not call what is happening as “kept afloat” more the third fingered hand of the cartoon drowning man.
Their attachment is what is drowning them. Letting go is the answer
——————————————————–
By and large their “attachment” is what got them through this season.
I don’t think there would be enough “good supporters” left to keep the club going in any meaningful fashion.
Can someone answer this question regarding the administration:
When the CVA failed and the shares for RFC reverted to Whyte, as stated by Green, was it legal for Duff and Phelps to sell the assets out from under the current owner?
I’m unsure how an administration works.
One way or another this is going to look bad for Duff and Phelps as the guy who brought them in now seems to be in cahoots with the next buyer while other bidders are ignored and shunted aside.
ecobhoy says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 11:56
Firstly, ecobhoy, can I say, you undoubtedly misread my post (or I didn’t write it in the way it was meant to come across).
My point regarding ‘large’ numbers of fans was to differentiate between one or two people getting into fisticuffs, or a few drunks getting expelled from a football ground, and to highlight how this ‘kettling’ took place in a season relatively devoid of serious trouble. As far as I am aware, the Dundee incident is the only major example of a large number of fans (more than one or two) being involved in drunken violence, or an incident classed as sectarian, apart from grounds holding TRFC fans, and it was not my intention to get at the Green Brigade by mentioning it. In short, my point was; why, in a season of relative calm in the football grounds of Scotland, did the police, or their governing authorities, feel the need to make an example of, what I believe, was a hitherto peaceful gathering of Celtic fans. In the meantime, no meaningful action is taken, by anyone, over the atrocious sectarian singing by TRFC fans at grounds throughout Scotland, and even in England.
Sorry if you misunderstood my post, it was genuinely intended to support those questioning the police action, but thank you for questioning it rather than to just give it a thumbs down 🙂
could this all be a part of the plan show that whyte was in on it from the begining, trying to goad the SFA to withdraw their “license” and giving them an excuse to dump the football club.
allyjambo says:
Friday, April 5, 2013 at 13:00
The Sun has just printed one, and that could well be enough. In fact, there is no need for witnesses to a verbal agreement, just an acknowledgement that it happened. From my Scots law studies of a great many years ago, I seem to remember that if someone can prove they carried out an act to the benefit of another, and that they would only do that for a payment or other benefit, then the court can, and has, accepted that a verbal contract was in place.
It is obviously not easy to prove the existence of a verbal contract, but not impossible, and what Green has said to the Sun would seem to make it more likely in this case. Now Green has shown himself to have been ‘duped’ by Scots Law in the past ie when he transferred the assets to Sevco 5088, an English based company, and had to re-transfer them to Sevco (Scotland). I’m pretty certain he has put his foot in it again because, like most English, and many Scots, he is completely unaware of this part of contract law in Scotland, and, trying to show how smart he is, and maybe to appease some bears too, was happy to show how he cheated Whyte out of his security and shares.
……………………………………………………………………….
30 years ago I was in a management position for a company with an English head office, whilst senior management were on a visit to Scotland I was verbally offered a very lucrative financial package which I accepted and it was later withdrawn.
I explained to them that as they made the verbal offer to me in Scotland it was a binding contract but if they had made the offer to me in England it would not have been.
I then threatened them with legal action and they actually physically laughed out loud at my claim to having a legal agreement, my solicitor contacted them and 3 days later I was offered a extremely generous severance package to leave the company.
These were people who ran a major national company employing thousands of people in Scotland and were totally unaware of Scottish law and how their managers talking to staff or customers could impact on their business and I think MR Green has made a similar mistake here.
Rangers Official website stated the other day: ‘PIP YEATES has left Rangers after five years of service. The first-team physiotherapist is leaving the Club to focus on his own business. Rangers thank him for his work during his time at Ibrox and wish him a successful future.’
———————————————————————————————————
To me that reads as though it was a mutual parting of the ways: But read: http://www.scotzine.com/2013/04/sacked-rangers-physio-phil-yeates-speaks-to-scotzine/
where Yeates makes it clear he was made redundant and had no choice in the matter – obviously he will need to focus on his own business or be on the dole but that’s not the reason he left Rangers as the website implies. It would appear that any news coming from Ibrox, even officially, just cannot be trusted. And I thought Green was banging the drum about all Rangers news would first appear on the Rangers website – wonder why he went running off to the Sun then? And are things that bad that the most successful football club in Scotland/Britain/The World can’t afford a physio?
Ecobhoy – a reading of the article unearths a few nuggets about TRFCs current financial plight. And, yes – a fitba club without a physio? Suggests they might not be fielding a team much longer, or they’ve got a work experience laddie in that reckons he can do a job.
http://www.scotzine.com/2013/04/sacked-rangers-physio-phil-yeates-speaks-to-scotzine/
….in summary….sacked because they are skint.
Oh, and
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/4874671/Kingy-on-a-Friday-John-Brown-should-stand-vindicated-by-Rangers-fans.html
suggests that the S*n might have got the bit between their teeth in terms of exposing the whole sorry mess. Here’s hoping. God knows they’ve done little else for football fans over the years.
Can I just say I have in my possession 100 pence, ready and waiting, and therefore declare first dibs.
http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/220306-craig-whyte-plans-legal-action-to-claim-back-rangers-ownership/
Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte is believed to be planning to launch legal action to secure the club’s assets from Charles Green’s consortium.
The former owner of the Ibrox club, who purchased an 85% stake in the ‘oldco’ from Sir David Murray for £1, has instructed London-based lawyers to serve Rangers with a writ demanding the assets are handed over in the coming weeks.
His legal action centres on the £5.5m deal which saw the club’s assets, including Ibrox stadium and the Murray Park, transferred from Rangers oldco to Sevco Scotland Limited.
Sevco Scotland Limited, which was later renamed The Rangers Football Club Limited, was created by Mr Green and his consortium. Title deeds for the club’s property indicate that the assets were transferred to Sevco Scotland on June 15 last year, the day after the oldco failed to secure a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) route out of administration.
Rangers previously stated that Sevco 5088 Limited, which administrators had identified as the pre-determined ‘newco’ for the club, transferred the assets to Sevco Scotland Limited to ensure that “the club’s corporate entity would be a Scottish registered company as it has always been.”
However, it is believed Mr Whyte’s legal action is based on his claim to have been the man behind Sevco 5088 and in control of its assets.
His lawyers issued the current regime at Ibrox with a letter in December ahead of the £22m stock market flotation of new parent firm Rangers International Football Club plc, which warned that he would take Mr Green’s consortium to court over the deal as they had not received permission from him to the transfer of assets to Sevco Scotland from Sevco 5088.
The only director listed at Companies House for Sevco 5088 Ltd is Charles Green, while he signed off on a proposal to have the firm dissolved at the end of 2012, although it has not yet been struck off.
Mr Green has branded Mr Whyte “delusional” over the claims and stated in an interview with the Scottish Sun that his colleague Imran Ahmad had told the former owner “anything he wanted to hear” in order to secure the club’s assets.
Previously, Mr Whyte issued a writ against BBC Scotland in February 2012 over a 2011 documentary in broadcast in which it was revealed that he had been banned as a director for seven years in 2000. However, no court hearings took place and his lawyers, Bannatyne Kirkwood France and Co, reached an out-of-court settlement with Mr Whyte over an alleged unpaid bill.
The Motherwell-born businessman also threatened to sue the Scottish FA after it banned him from any formal appointments in association football for life, although no legal action has occurred.
So much going on.
Which cup is the pea under?
They aint held a cup up yet