BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) But would that be a situation where liquidation could happen BH or is that not connected to Whyte not being 'fit and proper'? It's not connected at all. The fit and proper test applies to Whyte himself being the owner or even a director of the Club. His honesty had already been called into question by a judge and lately by a sheriff, plus his failure to disclose his disqualification and now this revelation. The administration and possible liquidation of the Club are based on the Club's finances not Whyte's honesty, solvency or competence, which would be the tests applied in terms of his being fit and proper. Edited February 21, 2012 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 If it is proven that he lied by saying that he used his own or his company's money to pay off Lloyds and that was not true then he will certainly fail a fit and proper test for being dishonest, so wouldn't be allowed to own the Club. Exactly how the SFA would deal with that is probably causing Mr Regan nightmares right now. I'm sure Peter Lawwell will be consoling Mr Regan in his hour of need, whispering subliminal messages in his ear as he sleeps. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 If it is proven that he lied by saying that he used his own or his company's money to pay off Lloyds and that was not true then he will certainly fail a fit and proper test for being dishonest, so wouldn't be allowed to own the Club. Exactly how the SFA would deal with that is probably causing Mr Regan nightmares right now. Fit and proper test would be the least of his worries, if AJ was correct and what he did was obtain "Financial assistance" (and reading the Mail it looks that way) then he could get 2 years at Her Majestys' pleasure. http://www.ibblaw.co.uk/downloads/brochures/2010-05-27-15-06-39-financial_assistance.pdf 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Fit and proper test would be the least of his worries, if AJ was correct and what he did was obtain "Financial assistance" (and reading the Mail it looks that way) then he could get 2 years at Her Majestys' pleasure. http://www.ibblaw.co.uk/downloads/brochures/2010-05-27-15-06-39-financial_assistance.pdf Am I right in saying that the following section could be extremely good news for the club if it's proven that Whyte did this? The law now clearly provides that any transaction which amounts to financial assistance is illegal and unenforceable — even if it could have been validated by the whitewash procedure (Harlow v Loveday [2004] BCC 732). It follows that any security or guarantee given in connection with the unlawful financial assistance will also be void and unenforceable. If the share purchase agreement contains provisions for unlawful financial assistance, it may be possible for those provisions to be severed from the agreement, leaving the balance of the agreement intact and enforceable. If severance is not possible, then the whole agreement is void Edited February 21, 2012 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So does Rangers owe Ticketus, no matter what can be proven against Whyte? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Ger_1872 2 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Given the fact that Ticketus (now dissolved btw) must have been in on this deal and if the reported 'safety net' was that he was gping to buy Rangers...then surely if Whyte is found out about this then from what i gather...this arrangement is null and void? Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Am I right in saying that the following section could be extremely good news for the club if it's proven that Whyte did this? Let's hope so! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefanovitch 0 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Given the fact that Ticketus (now dissolved btw) must have been in on this deal and if the reported 'safety net' was that he was gping to buy Rangers...then surely if Whyte is found out about this then from what i gather...this arrangement is null and void? Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk Would that mean the deal between Murray and Whyte was null and void? Thereforer we would still have the £24m hole due to TicketUs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Depressed and confused with this. I hope the Administrators can clear this up for us quickly 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What security did Whyte give Ticketus is another worry. 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.