Thread Rating:
RIFC
He asked for 18 mill to rebuild the team from a club he knew was going bust.

What a xxxx arsehole smith is.
Reply
reading through Findlays line of questioning seems he had 3 points to try and get over
1) Rangers where already in a very precarious position prior to the sale
2) They had a history of overspending for years trying for footballing success
3) They financial security of the "club" was dependant on European football

He also managed to show up The cardigan as not being acquainted with the truth
Reply
(21-04-2017, 16:28)edgie Wrote: reading through Findlays line of questioning seems he had 3 points to try and get over
1) Rangers where already in a very precarious position prior to the sale
2) They had a history of overspending for years trying for footballing success
3) They financial security of the "club" was dependant on European football

He also managed to show up The cardigan as not being acquainted with the truth

He sat on the board but didn't know anything about the finances.. No wonder this mob died.
Reply
now to Findlays point
In the charge Whyte is really accused of 2 things
1) getting the cash to buy Rangers ilegaly
2) not following through on his promises for investment specifically 5 Million on players and the wee tax case etc

Findlay points out to fat sally that 6 players signed and renewed contracts for 4 others and later that Total player salary spend listed in docs is £21m which Findlay says is more that Walter Smith spent season before

Findlay "who chose the players who came in"?
McCoist "I had the final say."
Cross-examination ends, case adjourns until Monday

FFS
that puts to bet the 5 mill on players not being spent
one part of the prosecutions case blown out the water and its only day one
Reply
so 'folding the club' was discussed over the EBT issue...... There you go.
Reply
Hold on you mean he got £1 illegaly??
Reply
"folding the club" ...I see every time there is a court case the FICTION that the club didn't end up in liquidation disappears

That's 3 court cases now and in each its been admitted that the club was the company
Reply
Board concerned "they did not know much about Mr Whyte and had been unable to find much out"


Yet the takeover panel waved him through........ And within hours of his name being mentioned it was all over the internet about his "business turnaround" exploits.

Funny that eh ?
Reply
I see that Under oath the Financial director has admitted that the discussed administration, couldn't afford the Big tax bill from board minutes: "The club has no value to offer settlement [to HMRC]", so if the big tax bill was upheld they where insolvent anyway, regardless of any other debts.

Also of interest to the res 12 people the date of the wee tax bill discussed, issued November 2010, with an appeal date of 31st December 2010 (no comment on any appeal raised)
quote from the FD Letter dated 26 November 2010, McIntyre confirmed Rangers accepted liability as there was a "side letter"

o dear that blows the SFAs claim that it hadn't crystallised by 31st march 2011 out of the water, so SFA stands guilty of giving rangers a European licence when they were blatantly in breach of FFP rules. " no social taxes over due" o dear ....

O and these are the prosecution witnesses wait till we get the defence ones


and finally the FD admits not disclosing information in the financial report of a PLC, specifically "Findlay notes financial report doesn't mention tax case liability or capital expenditure needed on stadium" and "McIntyre asked if he was ever concerned information was witheld from Whyte during takeover "I had a concern about salaries" he replies"
Reply
Mcintyre sent home with a flee in his ear
For a financial Director to be told by Findlay "You cost the club £1.8m what kind of financial idiocy is this?"
#WhyteTrial

cant stop laughing at this
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 287 Guest(s)