Stock Exchange Statement RE: Sevco 5088

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Whyte would sell a container load of sky hooks, left-handed screwdrivers and tins of tartan paint if someone was daft enough to buy it.

 

I'm struggling to know what to believe to be frank.

 

lawyers etc wont buy such things easily.

 

i should say they will attempt to take it to court. thats doesn't mean it will get there

[der Berliner 3,263]

On a sidenote, Whyte tries to get some share into the club via reporting Green and Ahmad to the Serious Fraud Squad et al. Even if he gets this, what does he think he can do with these shares? The level of hate against him by the blue legions was reaching boiling point last February. Maybe he wants to sell the shares immediately, but where does he expect to hide on this planet afterwards?

[forlanssister 3,050]

On a sidenote, Whyte tries to get some share into the club via reporting Green and Ahmad to the Serious Fraud Squad et al. Even if he gets this, what does he think he can do with these shares? The level of hate against him by the blue legions was reaching boiling point last February. Maybe he wants to sell the shares immediately, but where does he expect to hide on this planet afterwards?

 

He wants some filthy lucre it's that simple.

[Martin Bucer 0]

I may be wrong but I am sure that there was a statement from Rangers soon after liquadation that Sevco 5088 purchased the assets and the transfered them to Sevco scotland. Is this not what Bomber was on about outside Ibrox.

[barca72 440]

I have said before that everything we are being bombarded with centres around the premise that Whyte has a stake in Sevco 5088. I don't know about you but I am getting the impression that Whyte feels that Sevco 5088 bought Rangers from Duff & Phelps and Green somehow defrauded him of these assets by transferring them to Sevco Scotland. Whyte has to prove that he would be the person that would have benefitted the most from Sevco 5088 still having the Rangers assets to gain restitution. We have seen Whyte engage Worthington's to bankroll his case against Green and Ahmad. How does Whyte prove that Green defrauded or deceived him? You would think that if Whyte had a written contract between the parties then he would have produced it by now and the decision could be made. So does that mean he is attempting to tell us that he had an oral contract between them? I wondered about that, so I looked up some passages in an old law book. viz:-

The nature of a contract -

All contracts begin with a promise, but not all promises become contracts. Although there may be a moral obligation to keep all promises seriously made, it does not follow that there will be any legal obligation. Contract law is concerned with legally binding promises. In the words of a great English lawyer - " The most popular description of a contract that can be given is also the most exact one, namely that it is a promise or set of promises which the law will enforce ". So if Whyte believes that he has a contract in place the judge will primarily be concerned with two things. First, a description of the promise or promises that may form a contract, and second, an investigation of the resources available in the law to enforce them. A contract cannot come into existence until an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the another party.

The nature of an offer -

An offer is a tentative promise made by one party, the offeror, subject to a condition or containing a request to the other party, the offeree. When the offeree accepts the offer by agreeing to the condition or request, the offer is superseded by a contract; the promise is no longer tentative. The offeror is bound to carry out his promise while the offeree is bound to carry out the condition or request. A mere invitation to do business is not an offer to make a contract. At the root of our idea of a contract is the concept of a bargain, that one party must pay a price, that is make some contribution, for the promise he obtains from the other party. This price is called consideration. Consideration is essential to make a contract binding in law. A promise made in the absence of a bargain is called a gratuitous promise and, although accepted by the person to whom it is made, does not constitute a contract and is not enforceable in law.

So how does that lot help us? Well we can't know exactly what was agreed between these two, but we can make some assumptions. We heard Whyte's tapes and apart from having nuisance value I never heard anything that sounded like an oral contract. There was the point of Early paying the law firm 25K pounds to set up Sevco 5088. We could perhaps assume that Whyte and Early had set this up with the view of making Green the sole shareholder and director and then Green appointing them as directors so that they could make a decision on buying The Rangers Football Group from Duff & Phelps, but why wait eleven months to submit the AP01s supposedly signed by Green? Then there is the 137.5K pounds sitting in Ahmad's mom's account. Did Whyte agree to pay one quarter of the ten % down payment of the 5.5M pound payment to Duff & Phelps, it's never been touched so does that mean Green can claim there was no consideration given for a promise made? The scenarios are almost unlimited. Another thing I was thinking about was that if Whyte, when it became apparent that HMRC were forcing liquidation on him, and Green was transferring the club and assets from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland, why didn't he use estoppel? Promissory estoppel - The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise. English civil law is based on 'the actions of the reasonable man'. I can't see anything reasonable about Whyte's actions or decisions. A Parcel of Rogues, the lot of them.

[bluebear54 0]

On a sidenote, Whyte tries to get some share into the club via reporting Green and Ahmad to the Serious Fraud Squad et al. Even if he gets this, what does he think he can do with these shares? The level of hate against him by the blue legions was reaching boiling point last February. Maybe he wants to sell the shares immediately, but where does he expect to hide on this planet afterwards?

 

DB. On a point of order. The statement said the Serious Fraud Office. Not the Serious Fraud Squad. Whyte's too cute to lie to the Polis. He's in deep doodoo there anyway I think.

Papers got this wrong too. But heigh ho.

[der Berliner 3,263]

On another sidenote, this web of "names-only" plc's and Ltd's who work for and on behalf of other plc's and Ltd's is really mind-boggling. You start asking yourself how many got an address in the attic of some hairdresser ...

 

Law Financial Limited

 

... and ...

 

Gold Manson Ltd Registered Details

 

Short name: GOLD MANSON LIMITED

Date of Birth: Unknown

Director ID: 917655387

Registered Address

 

7950 N/w 53rd Street

Miami

Florida

Usa

33166

Edited April 25, 2013 by der Berliner

[Anchorman 0]

The sooner this lot are all telling their story to the man with a sheep's arse on his head, the better...

 

What's it got to do with Archie McPherson?

[djbroxybear 0]

Can't wait to see the day Whyte is Jailed for fraud, if he had a hand on Ibrox assets he would have sued Green and Amhed by now.