Bluedell 5,348 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) "Director disclosure The information in the paragraph below is disclosed pursuant to paragraph 18 of Appendix 1 of the PLUS Rules. Craig Whyte was disqualified to act as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years. The Directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. accept responsibility for this announcement. END" I'd make 2 points on this: 1. If the disclosure is required under PLUS rules then it should have been made at the time of the takeover. The rule is as follows: details of any official public incrimination or sanction of such person by statutory or regulatory authorities (including designated professional bodies) and whether such person has ever been disqualified by a court from acting in the management or conduct of the affairs of a company. Whatever the ins and outs of the BBC documentary, this rule was conveniently ignored. 2. The statement is misleading. Whyte was not disqualified to act as a director of Vital UK Ltd. He was disqualified to act as a director of any UK company. It seems that there are still attempts to hide facts from the support. Edited November 30, 2011 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 The failure to release the disclosure at the time of the takeover and the misleading wording of the one that's been released could potentially both be genuine mistakes though Bluedell. I'm not saying they were genuine mistakes, but they could have been.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 The failure to release the disclosure at the time of the takeover and the misleading wording of the one that's been released could potentially both be genuine mistakes though Bluedell. I'm not saying they were genuine mistakes, but they could have been.... If you make the original mistake in not highlighting/disclosing to the PLUS market, would normally entail that this particular release would be checked and double checked for accuracy. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) If you make the original mistake in not highlighting/disclosing to the PLUS market, would normally entail that this particular release would be checked and double checked for accuracy. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me..... Whyte's London-based legal hotshot, Plus Markets and Insolvency expert Gary Withey is probably the one responsible for taking care of these matters though..... "Do you play Polo old chap? I do, YA!" Edited November 30, 2011 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 This not have anything to do with the court case against the BBC that's coming up and their just getting all their Legal requirements in order. We all know he was disqualified so they have nothing to hide, but it is interesting why this wasnt done in May. Any of the business guru's on here know if he has to declare this everytime he becomes a director of a company? He must surely be a director in his other companies so must have disclosed this before so therefore it must be a public record, or am I just way off the mark. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Not being a finacial wizard may exclude me form commeting on this issue, but as far as I can tell, even from the BBC documentry, he'snot been prosecuted for anything. Of course these types of things are precisely the reasons I dislike intensely big high flying businessmen being involved in the game I love. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 This not have anything to do with the court case against the BBC that's coming up and their just getting all their Legal requirements in order. We all know he was disqualified so they have nothing to hide, but it is interesting why this wasnt done in May. Any of the business guru's on here know if he has to declare this everytime he becomes a director of a company? He must surely be a director in his other companies so must have disclosed this before so therefore it must be a public record, or am I just way off the mark. He would not need to declare it when becoming a director of a "normal" company, but does in this case as Rangers is a quoted PLC operating under PLUS marker rules. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,263 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Just out of interest: To whom has this information to be revealed and who says that it wasn't? That it was not known to the press and world-wide public is one thing, being told to those with real interest another. And, BTW, on a sidenote ... so what? Will someone be utterly dismayed by this and sue/fine him for *you name it*? Unless I am mistaken, he is pursuing the BBC not for revealing this but, but them claiming he was doing something criminal back then? Apart from the fact that they had Rangers written all over that programme, when it was essentially all about Whyte ten years ago ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I do not trust Craig Whyte one bit. I cannot see any evidence that this takeover is benefiting the club. He seems to have a murky past which is slowly coming to the fore and could in the long term be quite damaging to the club. Even the fact we're not owned by Lloyds is beginning to wear thin, because I didn't see a lot of damage being done to us while our debt was with them. Yeah. we had no money and were in debt to a bank, but it wasn't a bank who were intending to see us go under. We're still effectively in the same position of having almost no money and an owner whose past is coming back to haunt him. We've spent less under Whyte than we did in SDM/Lloyds final season! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) Take it you don't like him then Danny. No Whyte would mean no Davis, Naismith, McGregor and Jelavic at least. I know which I would rather have. Edited December 1, 2011 by GovanAllan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.