forlanssister 3,050 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The claim was far more complicated than that. The original basis of the claim for loss of value of assets alone was for in excess of £100m! In effect, the Club alleged that the actions of CB (or more accurately one of their Partners) resulted in a £5.5m "fire sale" of 1st and youth team playing squads, Ibrox and Murray Park and the Rangers Brand in general. The claim also factored in Administration and Liquidation Costs. The original claim was merely for the monies laying in the Collyer Bristow client account circa £3.6m. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 OK, so the CW offer persuaded the board not to have a share offer - the point still remains that SDM CHOSE CW's offer....how can you sue someone because you made a bad decision? CB are being sued because they were complicit in a conspiracy/plan to renage on their financial obligations etc. P Murrays involvement is that he & the rest of the board waited till the 11th hour before proposing their share issue idea - why was the £25m share issue not put into place months before hand? They were complicit in the 'loss' to the club of £25m through the scheme proposed by Paul Murray. It has nothing to do with anyone choosing the wrong deal. I fail to see how the timing of PM's proposal is relevant to any of this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenzEK 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The original claim was merely for the monies laying in the Collyer Bristow client account circa £3.6m. The £3.6m was PURELY the breach of trust element of the overall claim. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The £3.6m was PURELY the breach of trust element of the overall claim. No it wasn't the claim for the £3.6m was because the administrators claimed the money belonged to RFC plc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenzEK 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 No it wasn't the claim for the £3.6m was because the administrators claimed the money belonged to RFC plc. Yes, the breach of trust element. What I'm saying is that the overall claim against CB far exceeded that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 They were complicit in the 'loss' to the club of £25m through the scheme proposed by Paul Murray. It has nothing to do with anyone choosing the wrong deal. I fail to see how the timing of PM's proposal is relevant to any of this. The owner of the club had a choice - CW's offer or PM/Boards re-capitalisation.....SDM opted for the CW offer. CB then failed in many of their obligations with one of the main culprits being Gary Whithey - Whithey & Whyte effectively conned the club out of millions. CB were the legal entity responsible for carrying out the actions of CW. If I have the choice of buying 2 cars, and the one I opt for breaks down, I don't complain because the other car wouldn't have broken down. I complain because the car I did buy was duff & get the seller/manufacturer to rectify the situation - it has nothing to do with the other car & how good it may have been. Paul Murray was a director of our club, that proposed a last minute share issue in order to prevent the sale to CW - why was this not proposed months previous??? P Murray then went on to have several other failed attempts to gain control of the club. His latest attempt @ the AGM failed AGAIN....maybe he has just decided enough is enough. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Yes, the breach of trust element. What I'm saying is that the overall claim against CB far exceeded that. Do you have a link to this £100m+ claim? When was it decided to drop that and go for less than quarter of the total and on what grounds? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Yes, the breach of trust element. What I'm saying is that the overall claim against CB far exceeded that. From the administrators report. The Joint Administrators have issued proceedings in the High Court in London against Collyer Bristow solicitors as previously reported to creditors. This claim is for the sum of approximately £25 million and is being defended by solicitors acting for the defendants. The litigation commenced on 1 March 2012 by application to the Companies Court of the High Court (application number 2003/2012). No sign of of being in excess of £100m eh? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 The owner of the club had a choice - CW's offer or PM/Boards re-capitalisation.....SDM opted for the CW offer. CB then failed in many of their obligations with one of the main culprits being Gary Whithey - Whithey & Whyte effectively conned the club out of millions. CB were the legal entity responsible for carrying out the actions of CW. If I have the choice of buying 2 cars, and the one I opt for breaks down, I don't complain because the other car wouldn't have broken down. I complain because the car I did buy was duff & get the seller/manufacturer to rectify the situation - it has nothing to do with the other car & how good it may have been. Paul Murray was a director of our club, that proposed a last minute share issue in order to prevent the sale to CW - why was this not proposed months previous??? P Murray then went on to have several other failed attempts to gain control of the club. His latest attempt @ the AGM failed AGAIN....maybe he has just decided enough is enough. You're not grasping this. The argument was that the fraud perpetrated by Whyte and Withey resulted in the loss of £25m from elsewhere. Since that argument was accepted by the court, it seems churlish on your part to argue that it wasn't an effective claim.....but looking at some of your comments, perhaps you just have a dislike for Paul Murray! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenzEK 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 You're not grasping this. The argument was that the fraud perpetrated by Whyte and Withey resulted in the loss of £25m from elsewhere. Since that argument was accepted by the court, it seems churlish on your part to argue that it wasn't an effective claim.....but looking at some of your comments, perhaps you just have a dislike for Paul Murray! So if Paul Murray had not made an alternative offer then there would have been no claim? 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.