The Existence of Laws

Avatar By

Apol’s …. you guys ahead of me …. …

Comment on The Existence of Laws by newtz.

apol’s …. you guys ahead of me ….

newtz Also Commented

The Existence of Laws
HirsutePursuit says:
newtz says:
June 12, 2013 at 12:23 am
I’m intrigued by the whole financial assistance thing.
No matter how I try to figure it out, I simply don’t see how financial assistance can apply to Craig Whyte’s purchase of Rangers.
The Ticketus deal did not result in a reduction in the net assets of the company.
When Wavetower became the holder of a floating charge over the assets of Rangers, it was only because it took on an existing debt associated with that floating charge.
If Wavetower had borrowed money to buy the Rangers shares and assigned the cost as a new debt against the club then that absolutely would have been financial assistance.


But, as I understand it…

With no additional debt burden, the loss of intangible assets (future ticket sales) would have been cancelled out by the reduction in debt as those tickets were sold.
As it turned out, the vast majority of those future tickets were not sold. Therefore, to my mind, Wavetower have a valid floating charge and are creditors in the liquidation of Rangers to the tune of £18m or so. Exactly as BoS would have been if the Ticketus deal had never happened. As I say, as I understand it.

Of course it suited D&P to say definitively that the club’s purchase was the result of financial assistance. It simultaneously allowed them say that they would strike out the Ticketus contract and Craig’s secured debt should a CVA be agreed.
But, did they truly believe that a CVA would be agreed?


This is worthy of greater debate ….. but could do with input of some of our legal minded posters. Have left a quiery with Wed3DLaw to see if he might provide input

I need to go back and listen to the tapes again before commenting further, but it seems to me that your points are good

Any takers ….

The Existence of Laws
slimshady61 says:

June 12, 2013 at 7:56 pm
I just jumped into my Time Machine and grabbed it before returning #WayBack

soooo useful ….
(th June stuff removed ….. tuned Time machine to 10th June ….. easy peasy ….

use it all the time to access RTC stuff ….. and an interesting tax dodging company that thought it had removed incriminating stuff ….. LOL

The Existence of Laws
Auldheid says:

June 12, 2013 at 6:53 pm

bogsdollox says:

June 12, 2013 at 6:47 pm

Unless CW was present you will not get them. It’s CW’s stuff CF has.
Not quite true guys ….
they needed RFC approval first ….so CW will have copy …. LOL

Recent Comments by newtz

Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!
Exiled Celt says: (800) November 18, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Sensible to flag any intrusion, esp after a download. Gives others clear warning to check and others with strong security to look closer and check / report.
Have caught a few after folllowing links to RM (Tut Tut), and was able to warn.
Hey, Happy 800 …

Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!
Exiled Celt says: (799) November 18, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Have checked with ESET Smart Security 4 (Bus edition) and latest signature database …
Performed new scan … just in case ….
All looks fine


The Immortality Project
@Eco, Neep 100BJD others

Just want to cover off the Novation discussion ….. postedd back in Aug
I have often referred to the document in question as the Patrick (Cannon) Doc(s) of FFW
I have oft goaded Charlotte into releasing this document or surrounding corresponadance …. Not a Peep !
Why ?
newtz says:August 16, 2013 at 6:27 pm

Castofthousands says:August 16, 2013 at 1:52 am

newtz says: August 15, 2013 at 11:55 pm
“……. ….. … … …. .. …. ….”
You refer initially to Clause lA.2 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. I had a quick skim of Charlotte’s version but couldn’t spot this clause. What page is it on?

Ah ha ….. you won’t find it CoT because that snippet is direct from the Regan letter to MM in response to CG letter …..

So that tells us that there is an seperate SPA between RFC(IL) and Sevco Scotland ….. indeed Regan states such … and he has extracted a key statement for us …..

that Sevco 5088 Limited assigned to Sevco Scotland Limited “its whole right title and interest in and to the Offer Letter”

It’s starting to unwind at last …..

There would have had to have been a high burden of proof to convince D&P that such an assignation could happen …… I repeat …… A high burden of proof ….. without D&P being exposed to claims of collusion in fraud ….

I suspect that the audio where we hear IA on the phone to Patrick (FFW) and describing to CW where to sign …. is the assignation document ….. I have previously called it the ‘Patrick doc(s)’ ….. Why is Charlotte NOT releasing it ?? …. CW must have been given/sent a copy ….. otherwise he is a complete idiot ….. so far he has proven he is not !

The suspicion arises then that there is a further doc/agreement protecting CW’s interests …….


Charlotte ……. this raises serious questions ………. are you protecting someones interests ?
You can clear this up with a simple response ….. if you do not have the doc then there will be correspondance relating to it …….. yet nothing ………… or have we still to get to the Nuclear exit !

Or just tell me i’m …….. Wrong !

Another point I have been wanting to make …..
In all of the documents we have had sight of including Prospectus and interim accounts etc …. we seethe statement regarding Novation to Sevco Scotland, Not Once was the £NIL consideration mentioned. …… !!!
Slipping it in now does not quell the questions surrounding this … is it to cover the CW/AE claim ….. it won’t wash !

The Immortality Project
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:September 13, 2013 at 10:55 pm

I meant to edit the prev post to include the date…. 29/5/2013

What/who exactly are they hiding ? ………..

@BRTH …. just a question …
What if any single beneficiary holds greater than 10% … ?

The Immortality Project
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:September 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm

Ok, got it.

The number ties with the Oct filing which groups all shares alloted and ties in with the IPO doc.(I believe)
No change then.Still does not answer the original point ….

About the author