Day 7 (Tuesday) – The Rangers (In Administration) Saga Continues – Conflicts of Interest and the Right Against Self-Incrimination

I have not had the chance to keep up with the administrators’ statements from Ibrox over the last couple of days, so this is my chance. As before, the original statements are in bold, with my comments below in plain text. This is Tuesday’s.

DUFF and Phelps, Administrators of Rangers Football Club, today (Tuesday 21^st February) issued the following statement.

David Whitehouse, joint administrator, said: “Since being appointed administrators last week there has been widespread concern raised with us, not least by Rangers supporters and season ticket holders, about the agreement between the Club and Ticketus.

“Following information received, it is now apparent that the proceeds from the Ticketus arrangements amounted initially to a sum in the region of £20 million plus VAT. Subsequently, £18 million was transferred to the Lloyds Banking Group.

Was the information, as was suggested over the weekend, from Collyer Bristow? Or was it from Mr Whyte, who was described by the administrators as “co-operating” with them. Not so much as to tell them where the Ticketus money was, it would appear!

The apparent role of Collyer Bristow is worthy of attention, I feel. Before I start, I am sure that they have fulfilled all of their obligations and duties regarding client identification, checking of sources of funds and conflicts of interest, but there are some issues that, to a lay observer, might seem worthy of note.

The administrators had suggested they were getting information from “Rangers’ former lawyers”. Gary Withey, a partner in Collyer Bristow, is Company Secretary to Rangers Football Club PLC (in administration). He personally, and his firm, have been acting for Rangers, as I will refer to the PLC. For example, he was the person who, on Rangers’ behalf, sent a formal complaint about Messrs Levy & MacRae to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, alleging that L&M were themselves acting in a conflict situation. This complaint was made despite L&M having produced clear expert opinion that its behaviour was entirely appropriate, and that information not having been passed by Mr Withey to the SLCC.

In addition, it is understood that Mr Withey was responsible for the choice of Edinburgh lawyer for Rangers in the Martin Bain case, the original choice, as it turned out, not being up to the high-powered team assembled by Peter Watson of L&M for Mr Bain.

As well as acting for Rangers, Collyer Bristow act, as far as has been made known, for Rangers FC Group Ltd. That company, referred to as Group, has its Registered Office at Collyer Bristow’s address.

Collyer Bristow may act personally for Mr Whyte and for his Liberty Capital Ltd company.

As the suggestion re Ticketus is that season tickets belonging to Rangers were sold off by Mr Whyte, with the proceeds going to Group to settle the Lloyds Bank debt, does this not, I have been asked, present a potential conflict?

If one company on a group transfers assets to another, then the paper trail has to be transparent. It is not for directors to shift funds and assets around without good cause and proper records. After all, the directors run the company in the interests of the shareholders.

What legal advice did Mr Whyte, who assured us he had such “high-powered” assistance, receive regarding the Ticketus deal? Was this provided by Collyer Bristow, and if so, to whom?

Might they have advised Mr Whyte in each capacity?

If indeed Mr Whyte/Rangers/Group was advised by Collyer Bristow on this point, was that advice followed?

Craig Whyte’s Statement – 21st February – Is It “Wholly Unreliable?”

Mr Whyte is keen on keeping me busy. He issued another statement today. As before I thought it would be useful to run down what he had to say to see how it matched what he’s already said, and also to see where matters might go from here.

It is of note that this is the first statement by Mr Whyte since administration which is not published on the Rangers website.

As before, Mr Whyte’s statement is in bold, with my comments below in plain text.

STATEMENT ISSUED ON BEHALF OF CRAIG WHYTE – TUESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2012

Craig Whyte today promised that if he emerges from administration still in control of Rangers FC that he will give immediate consideration to gifting the majority of his shares to a supporters’ foundation.

I might be accused of nit picking (as indeed I frequently am) but maybe someone should tell Mr Whyte that he is not in administration, but that the company, Rangers Football Club PLC is. There are many things Mr Whyte might emerge from, but administration is not one of them.

It is good to see that he will “give immediate consideration” to gifting “the majority” of his shares to a supporters’ foundation.

I will now give immediate consideration to ringing for a chicken vindaloo from my local takeaway…I will now give my immediate consideration to mounting an expedition to climb K2…I will now give my immediate consideration to giving up writing about Mr Whyte for Lent…

Right. I have given all those matters my “immediate consideration” and decided not to do any of them…

Where was I? OK – on with the statement.

And he provided detailed answers to the blizzard of questions and allegations that have surrounded his decision to put the club into administration a week ago.

Detailed answers! Brilliant! I am looking forward to this!

TICKETUS:

On the Ticketus arrangement he said that, it was ‘without any shadow of a doubt, the best deal for Rangers.’

The best deal for Rangers…is that Rangers Football Club PLC (now in administration) or Rangers FC Group Ltd?

The Ticketus funds, which amounted to £20m plus VAT, was agreed as bridging finance while negotiations with HMRC were under way to try to reach a compromise on both the ‘wee’ and ‘big’ tax cases.

Now we have clarity regarding the Ticketus deal – £20 million plus VAT – that amounts to £24 million, £4 million of which to be remitted to HMRC as VAT.

“Bridging finance” – an interesting description. Normally that refers to funds needed to “bridge the gap” between funds having to go out, and other money coming in. For example, if a person was buying a new home at the same time as selling their old one, but the sale was only to proceed a few days after the purchase, banks would lend funds for a few days to allow the purchase to go through. Open ended bridging, where there was money needed to pay the purchase price, but where the sale had not been agreed, was frowned upon and now, as far as I am aware, it does not exist. The risks for the lender are too high.

The use of the phrase “bridging finance” would suggest that there was money coming to Rangers at some point, but that, in between times money was needed to pay HMRC.

It is interesting to see that the terminology coined by RangersTaxCase.com is now used by Mr Whyte (or his PR people) bearing in mind that he once referred to the RTC site as “99% crap”.

So Mr Whyte needed these funds to bridge the HMRC situation? That makes no sense.

I also like the suggestion of “compromise” regarding both cases.

The Big Tax Case was under appeal and no decision is released yet. The sale agreement allowed Murray International Holdings to deal with the appeal, not Mr Whyte. What was he trying to “compromise”?

As for the “Wee Tax Case”, Mr Whyte’s Shareholders’ Circular agreed that he would settle this. He did not do so. The funds were arrested in Rangers’ bank. It was thought they had been remitted to HMRC having been arrested for sufficient time, but, at the last minute, there came a rumour of an appeal.

Compromise? As I believe some football fans might say – Craig Whyte, you’re having a laugh!

Mr Whyte said: ‘The arrangement with Ticketus – which was a three-season deal NOT four, as has been reported – was originally to provide additional working capital as had been the case previously under the old board. My corporate advisors came to me with the proposition that it was entirely possible, as well as highly beneficial, to negotiate a deal with Ticketus that would allow us to complete the takeover and maximise working capital for the club’s day-to-day business.

Ticketus “was” a three year deal, says Mr Whyte. He says that it was not a four-year deal. That actually fits with reports. It “was” a three-year deal, and then, after Rangers could not pay the first payment to Ticketus in full, it became a four-year deal.

In addition, the MG05 form, which was intended to release the season tickets from the floating charge, was for four seasons.

The deal was “originally” to provide “additional” working capital – so not bridging finance then. Who were the “corporate advisers”? Were they from MCR LLP, now part of Duff & Phelps? Mr Grier of MCR, now Duff & Phelps, was definitely around Mr Whyte a lot at the time of the takeover.

The Ticketus deal was to allow him to “complete the takeover” and “maximise” working capital for the club. Why then did the administrators say there was no trace of the Ticketus funds coming into the Club? He previously denied that the Ticketus money paid for the purchase – and as the price was £1 one would hope he did not need a loan for that.

‘The Ticketus deal was by far the best way to protect the club given the circumstances in that they have no security over any assets. The only person at risk from the deal is me personally because I gave Ticketus personal and corporate guarantees underwriting their investment; the club and the fans are fully protected. In terms of exposure, I am personally on the line for £27.5m in guarantees and cash.

Ticketus have no security over assets? But they do have right to over half of the Rangers’ season tickets over the next three years! However it is interesting that Mr Whyte identifies that he has given personal and corporate guarantees. Strictly of course a corporate guarantee is by the company, not him.

What does he mean when he says he is “personally on the line for £27.5 million in guarantees and cash”? Which of his companies has the funds to provide such a guarantee? Does he have sufficient personal wealth to do so?

Perhaps his bullion trading was very successful!

In the same way as James Randi offers a $1 million prixze to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under labaoratory conditions, someone might choose to make a similar offer to someone who can identify a company of Mr Whyte’s which has made the money needed to underwrite such a deal?

Craig Whyte and the Costa Rica Connection + Another Prescient Website Domain Name?

 

Following on from my earlier piece about Mr Craig Whyte Mr Thomas Craig and the Bullion company, a second piece which sits on the shoulders of Billybhoy38’s researches.

I think Mr Whyte has a sense of humour. How else can one explain his registration of LeaveBritain.com as mentioned earlier, and now the following website?

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I Present FearAndGreedReport.com

Yes – you read it correctly. In 2008 the domain name Fear and Greed Report.Com was registered.

As you can see (and click to enlarge if needed) the Registrant is HTX Holdings of Florida.

However, a quick search for HTX Holdings reveals this.

“Company: htx holdings s.a. HTX Holdings S.A.

Address: TixPay Ltd, 65 Bath Street, Third Floor, Glasgow G2 2BX United Kingdom”

Of course Mr Whyte’s company Tixway UK is registered at Bath Street, but what is this “TixPay”?

A quick company search reveals that this company, under company number 04566751 was dissolved in 2009. Its registered office was at the Skylines Village address in London where many of Mr Whyte’s companies seem to be based.

The human directors of TixPay are shown as Thomas Whyte (Craig’s father) and Kenneth MacLeod, the disgraced accountant. Mr MacLeod is listed as a director of 15 companies along with Craig Whyte (1969 vintage).

It is of note that TixPay was formed in 2002, after the various other companies in which Craig Whyte and Mr MacLeod were involved had gone under.

It is also easier than that to see a connection between Fear and Greed and Mr Craig Whyte – he is listed as the administrative contact, under the email address – ctw@libertycapital.biz.

Take a note of the phone number listed too – 561-282-6641.

Because that leads us to the following.

 

BellaVistaCR.com

The contact details from Fear and Greed match up with the web domain for the above site.

Here, via the Internet wayback machine, you can see the website as it was, shorn of the pictures.

The property was up for sale for $1.875 million. Was this Mr Whyte’s home in Costa Rica, being sold to generate the funds to buy him Castle Grant? Or was Mr Whyte branching out into estate agency? Maybe he was acting as the estate agent for the sale, and generating himself a fine commission?

In any event, there is still a web presence online for this property which can be found here.

And it is fair to say that this looks to be a lovely place for an escape, and only $1,200 per night too! What a fine place to while away the hours contemplating the cold and wet of Glasgow, and the ingratitude of those enemies of Rangers who have chased you away from Ibrox before your work is complete.

Perhaps Mr Whyte was simply the selling agent, or else he might have retained ownership to rent it out? Otherwise he might have booked this sunny hideaway for a bit of a rest.

Some cruel people have been suggesting that Mr Whyte’s apparent fondness for Costa Rica relates to its lack of an extradition treaty with the UK.

Such a suggestion is grossly unfair. After all, it was reported that prior to his departure to pastures unknown, Mr Whyte met with Duff & Phelps in London, and also, as the administrators said in their coda to Mr Whyte’s farewell missive:-

“CRAIG WHYTE has co-operated with us since our appointment as administrators”.

Perhaps Duff & Phelps have a sense of humour too?

 

Craig Whyte, Gold Dealer + LeaveBritain.com or “The Tale of a Suave Bullionaire”

I must thank, as I start, the extraordinarily diligent Billybhoy68 for his fantastic and thorough research on this and the following piece. The raw material and much of the analysis is down to him – I have merely inserted some extra verbiage in what is, at the very least, a very ironic tale, and at worst, could be …. Well, who knows!

Mr Whyte, as we all now know, was disqualified for seven years in 2000 from being a company director in the UK. The Sunday Herald yesterday raised questions about his company, Liberty Capital Ltd, registered in the British Virgin Islands, doing business in the UK during that period. Even though that is perfectly legal, it does seem to raise questions about the efficacy of the company disqualification laws, where they could be circumvented by means of an offshore company (although it is not suggested that Mr Whyte indulged in any such doubtfully legal behaviour).

Billybhoy68 was also intrigued by this period in Mr Whyte’s life. Did Mr Whyte, he wondered, devote all his time and energy to running his BVI operations from his home in the playground of the rich and famous in Monaco?

The detective work which follows is worthy of Sherlock at his very best!

LeaveBritain.com

We start with the above domain which was registered on 15^th April 2004. It is an interesting and either a nostalgic or precient domain name, to say the least.

It becomes more so when we see, as shown below, the email address of the “Administrative contact”. (If, like me, the eyesight is not as good as it was, click on each image to enlarge.)

That is a Mr David Smith, whose email address is given as ctw@libertycapital.biz. Now, do we know of anyone with the initials CTW and a connection with a company called Liberty Capital? Yes, I think we do!

Sadly “David Smith” is such a common name that we have not been able to locate him. It would be wrong to make any accusation that this was a name created by Mr Whyte for the occasion. It is almost certainly one of his hapless admin staff who, as we know, are dreadful at keeping track of the official paperwork. Mr Whyte would therefore be quite justified in making sure that his underling’s email went to him personally.

You will also notice the phone number listed under the Florida address “3054338101”.

That leads us on to the next part of the story.

The Daniel Cousin Mystery – Why are Rangers’ Administrators Signing Players?

Daniel Cousin has become a metaphor for what seems to be a remarkably ham-fisted first week of Rangers’ administration. In only a couple of weeks he has gone from the man whom some Rangers fans thought would save their season to being a symbol of the confusion now reigning at Ibrox.

What has happened, and why?

The only sensible explanation for the events of last week about Mr Cousin is, as I spell out below, that he was paid his wages for the rest of the season “up front” prior to the administrators coming in, and that Rangers did not manage to get him signed and registered because administration came upon them on Tuesday, almost two weeks before their planned date.

Read on, and see if you agree.

 

Daniel Cousin’s Previous Time at Rangers

Cousin is a Gabonese international striker, who had a successful season at Ibrox in 2007-2008. Having been bought by Rangers for a reported fee of £750,000, his value increased though his first few months with the team, until he was sold to Fulham for £3 million in the winter transfer window. However, as a result of him already having played for two teams that season, he needed FIFA dispensation for the transfer to go through, and when this was refused, he returned to Ibrox.

It is ironic that having, on that occasion, remained a Rangers player through intervention by the football regulators, he is now barred from playing for Rangers by the football regulators!

He finally left for Hull at the end of the summer 2008 transfer window.

 

The Hero Returns, or Does He?

We now fast-forward to this year where, after being released by his club side on 31^st January 2012, Cousin became a free agent. As Rangers forward line had been badly affected by injury and the transfer of Jelavic to Everton, good front men were very valuable to Rangers.

On 11^th February the BBC reported that Cousin had agreed personal terms and was headed to Ibrox to sign. His agent, Willie McKay, was quoted by the BBC describing the deal:-

He said that Championship clubs in England and others in Qatar and Dubai were also interested in Cousin, but the striker’s preference was to rejoin Rangers.

“He can go elsewhere for three times the money, but he fancied having Rangers Football Club back on his CV in probably his last season in football,” said McKay.

“The boy is happy to come back, but they have offered him 25% of what he was on in his last contract at Ibrox. They offered £7,500 then they came back and said ‘we’ll give you five grand a week’. It’s only 10 weeks.”

Ally McCoist was quoted in the same piece saying that he had not yet registered as paperwork from the Gabon FA was awaited.

As we know, 13^th February saw the intention to appoint an administrator signalled to the court, and on 14^th February, administrators were installed.

Mr Cousin seemed to be in limbo.

 

The SPL Board Refuses to Register Cousin

On Friday 17^th February, the SPL issued the following Press Statement:-

“The SPL was at 3.26pm today presented with a contract between Daniel Cousin (“the Player”) and Rangers FC dated 17 February 2012, signed by the Player and by Paul Clark, the Joint Administrator of The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration). In terms of SPL Rule A6.20, the consent of the Board of the SPL was required for the Registration of the Player with the SPL. The Board of the SPL declined to give that consent. Accordingly the Player is not Registered with the SPL and is not eligible to Play in SPL Matches. Rangers FC have the right to appeal this decision to the Judicial Panel of the Scottish FA.

Notes

A6.20  Except with the consent of the Board and that only where (i) the term of a Player’s contract of service with his Club has expired and such contract has not been renewed or extended or such a contract has terminated with the mutual consent in writing of the Club and the Player concerned and, in either case, the registration of such Player with the League in terms of Section D of the Rules has been cancelled and a replacement Player is sought to be registered to replace the Player whose contract has so expired or been terminated; or, (ii) where the Player sought to be registered is a temporary replacement for a goalkeeper who is unable by reason of injury or illness to play and that only where written confirmation of such inability shall have been obtained by the Club from a qualified medical practitioner and submitted to the Board and the Board is satisfied that the Club concerned has no other goalkeeper who is registered and able to play, a Club that has taken, suffered or has been subject to an Insolvency Event or Events shall not be entitled or permitted to register any Player with the League and the League shall not register such a Player in terms of Section D of the Rules until such Insolvency Event or events shall no longer continue or subsist.”

The administrator has announced the intention to appeal this decision.

We shall look at that decision first, and then at the implications of the surrounding circumstances.