Darthter 542 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So you're puzzled that HMRC are investigating a deal set up by Craig Whyte in which he does a deal to sell an asset he does not (at the time) own and you don't think HMRC should question the office bearers ( at the time) of the company that actually did own the asset ? Don't have an issue with them QUESTIONING anyone....but showing them "evidence" - that's a different matter!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It is unusual for HMRC to show a whole load of documents to ex-directors while asking these questions. A simple question is "do you know anything about an arrangement with Ticketus?" When a no answer comes back, why would HMRC then go through the details with the said director? I would imagine because they think they have good reason too. Your Ticketus question doesn't stack up because we already know Paul Murray has "knowledge" of an arrangement with Ticketus re the Jelavic deal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,345 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I would imagine because they think they have good reason too. Your Ticketus question doesn't stack up because we already know Paul Murray has "knowledge" of an arrangement with Ticketus re the Jelavic deal. They may think that they had good reason but I certainly wouldn't be happy if HMRC started showing commercial documents to ex-non execs of any company that I was involved in. I'd be putting in official complaints about it. He's also seen letters from Whyte written before Whyte had anything to do with the club. I can't see any justification for this. As for the question, a simple wording change would make it stack up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
franker 1 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 They may think that they had good reason but I certainly wouldn't be happy if HMRC started showing commercial documents to ex-non execs of any company that I was involved in. I'd be putting in official complaints about it. He's also seen letters from Whyte written before Whyte had anything to do with the club. I can't see any justification for this. As for the question, a simple wording change would make it stack up. As previously stated by Forlanssister, surely what is more relevant is how Whyte can "sell" an asset without owning the club?? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 As previously stated by Forlanssister, surely what is more relevant is how Whyte can "sell" an asset without owning the club?? Did he sell it or did he provide an intent to sell ? There is a marked difference. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,345 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Agreed, Craig. Any deal done would be provisional. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
franker 1 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Did he sell it or did he provide an intent to sell ? There is a marked difference. From todays article: March 8th Letter signed by Whyte to Ticketus confirming intent to sell season tickets(2 months before sale of club) April 7th-the monies were paid into the client account of Bristow Collyer on 7th April - (4 weeks before the sale of the club was completed) May 9th- The actual agreement ref above is actually signed(3 days after the sale of the club) The critical date for me is when the 24.4 million was deposited 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 From todays article: March 8th Letter signed by Whyte to Ticketus confirming intent to sell season tickets(2 months before sale of club)April 7th-the monies were paid into the client account of Bristow Collyer on 7th April - (4 weeks before the sale of the club was completed) May 9th- The actual agreement ref above is actually signed(3 days after the sale of the club) The critical date for me is when the 24.4 million was deposited The critical thing for me would be what the agreement actually entailed. It would not be the first time that a deal is struck which has contingencies in place. Ticketus could very well have loaned Whyte the money such that in the event Whyte was successful with his purchase then the deal is struck to use future ST sales. But, in the event his bid was unsuccessful, then Whyte would have to pay Ticketus the loaned funds back plus a hefty slice of interest and/or non-success fee. A no-lose scenario to Ticketus (other than if Whyte completely baulked at repaying them in the event of a failed bid, which would be unlikely given he would have done nothing with the money so would have no reason to withhold it). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Agreed, Craig. Any deal done would be provisional. Of course it would be, Whyte couldn't possibly be in the position to deliver till he had actual physical control of the process. It's a quite remarkable bit of business by Whyte (which in a perverse way I grudgingly admire) buy the Rangers for a total sum of £1 of your own cash and use the clubs (ergo the fans) money to satisfy LBG. From todays article: March 8th Letter signed by Whyte to Ticketus confirming intent to sell season tickets(2 months before sale of club)April 7th-the monies were paid into the client account of Bristow Collyer on 7th April - (4 weeks before the sale of the club was completed) May 9th- The actual agreement ref above is actually signed(3 days after the sale of the club) The critical date for me is when the 24.4 million was deposited Indeed it is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,345 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 A no-lose scenario to Ticketus (other than if Whyte completely baulked at repaying them in the event of a failed bid, which would be unlikely given he would have done nothing with the money so would have no reason to withhold it). Chances are that Whyte would not have had access to the cash and would not have had the ability to withhold the cash. 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.