RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Let's be honest here, Collyer Bristow were also shafted by Whyte and Withey. Unprofessional & negligent I'd say. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Unprofessional & negligent I'd say. You have repeatedly shown that you have no understanding of the most basic of facts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 You have repeatedly shown that you have no understanding of the most basic of facts. How? Explain? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 How? Explain? #14 & #16 for starters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Could someone explain & include evidence, exactly what the CB stuff has to do with P Murray. I thought it was due to CB being just as crooked as CW, and being complicit in an illegal purchase of RFC, and also for missing funds inc. if I recall the money from the Arsenal shares which was facilitated through CB but never found its way to RFC..... P Murray was not involved in any official capacity.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Could someone explain & include evidence, exactly what the CB stuff has to do with P Murray. I thought it was due to CB being just as crooked as CW, and being complicit in an illegal purchase of RFC, and also for missing funds inc. if I recall the money from the Arsenal shares which was facilitated through CB but never found its way to RFC..... P Murray was not involved in any official capacity.... The court heard that Whyte’s majority-stake takeover offer in May 2011 pledged to pay off the cash-strapped club’s £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group and invest £9.5m of “new money” into the club - £5m for players, £2.8m to HM Revenue & Customs and £1.7m for capital expenditure. That offer persuaded then-director Paul Murray and the board not to launch an alternative £25m share issue to generate the money needed to stabilise Rangers. Instead, the court was told, they agreed to Whyte’s takeover, with Collyer Bristow acting for the group. http://www.thelawyer.com/full-extent-of-rangers-fc-claims-against-collyer-bristow-laid-bare/1012303.article The Arsenal shares had nowt to do with Collyer Bristow. Whyte channelled that money through Pritchard Stockbrokers, another front which was soon wound up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 http://www.thelawyer.com/full-extent-of-rangers-fc-claims-against-collyer-bristow-laid-bare/1012303.article The Arsenal shares had nowt to do with Collyer Bristow. Whyte channelled that money through Pritchard Stockbrokers, another front which was soon wound up. Your quoted info only states that Murray tabled an alternative offer. SDM opted to take the £27.5m offered by CW as opposed to the potential £25m from pmurray. How can you sue someone because a wrong decision was made? CB were being pursued because they did do things correctly & were negligent. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 From the other thread about the £24m settlement.... hear that the liquidator's claim brought against Collyer Bristow has been settled as of yesterday. Further, it is now likely that criminal proceedings will follow. The total amounts to a £24m settlement to creditors less liquidators costs. Settlement covers the following: Breach of undertaking, breach of trust, deceit/conspiracy, admin and liquidation costs, claimant's costs, interest. Around £15m of that will likely be attributed to the breach of undertaking by the law firm. This represents an impressive recovery for creditors. The settlement would appear to confirm the belief that the Oldco was the victim of a criminal conspiracy. Had the prima facie evidence available to all of us at the time been accepted by the governing bodies – from the Murray arrangement with Lloyds and the reality that the huge ‘debt’ being floated as a fact was closer to myth than reality (and, bondholders aside, almost entirely a matter of Whyte’s dealings with Ticketus and lack of short-term engagement with the tax process) – then much hurt and suffering would have been avoided. No mention of P Murray.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenzEK 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Fascinating isn't it. I disagree with this, Paul Muray's rival bid has no bearing on the £24m settlement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Your quoted info only states that Murray tabled an alternative offer. SDM opted to take the £27.5m offered by CW as opposed to the potential £25m from pmurray. How can you sue someone because a wrong decision was made? CB were being pursued because they did do things correctly & were negligent. No, it says that Whyte’s bid persuaded Paul Murray NOT to launch alternative funding. You were provided with the evidence that you asked for. If you choose not to believe that it was used as an argument in court, then that is your prerogative, but you could at least have read what it actually stated. 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.