KnightswoodBear Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 From memory, Paul Murray appeared on the scene almost as Whyte's bid was accepted. In other words he had no chance of it coming to fruition. It seemed that he placed the bid in an attempt to stop the Whyte bid succeding. He was very vocal at the time that Whyte was a charlatan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
port-ton Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Even if nothing comes of this and Rangers are admitted back into the SPL debt free, we can still cling onto one thing. Every now and then on individual club forums or on P&B whether you're a fan of an SPL team or an SFL team you will have said, or seen someone who supports your team say " we are the laughing stock of Scottish football right now " despite the fact that outside of your teams support no one could really care all that much, other than some timely amusement to pass the time. Well Rangers FC, for the past three weeks you have genuinely been the laughing stock of Scottish football, and no matter what your " proud " history says, or what your future achievements are, you will never be able to take that away from us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Cowboy Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Paul Murray had a bid dismissed at the same time as Whyte bought the club. A bid that appeared to be based on cost cutting and paying off Lloyds over a set amount of time. Sounds similar what the club (Lloyds) had been doing up until then - so why did Lloyds/Murray not want that deal? Or am I getting into Loony Leggo territory here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sounds similar what the club (Lloyds) had been doing up until then - so why did Lloyds/Murray not want that deal? Or am I getting into Loony Leggo territory here? This is where it all gets a bit murky and seems that there was pressure placed on David Murray by the bank to accept Whyte's bid. Probably because there was the promise of paying off all the debt in a oner rather than over X number of years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sounds similar what the club (Lloyds) had been doing up until then - so why did Lloyds/Murray not want that deal? Or am I getting into Loony Leggo territory here? Eh? Why would Lloyds want their money paid back in Irn Bru bottles over 20 years if another offer gives them the full amount up front? D Murray never had a say in it. The bank had him strung up by the balls and he didn't have a pot to piss in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 This is where it all gets a bit murky and seems that there was pressure placed on David Murray by the bank to accept Whyte's bid. Probably because there was the promise of paying off all the debt in a oner rather than over X number of years. The bank had called in their debt. Murray would have had precisely f**k all say in the matter, all the bank wanted was their wedge back in full and to get the hell out of Ibrox with it. Any further problems were then not theirs, they couldn't give a f**k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Eh? Why would Lloyds want their money paid back in Irn Bru bottles over 20 years if another offer gives them the full amount up front? D Murray never had a say in it. The bank had him strung up by the balls and he didn't have a pot to piss in. If David Murray could piss into a pot whilst strung up by the balls i would pay off the rangers debt myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 If David Murray could piss into a pot whilst strung up by the balls i would pay off the rangers debt myself. Sounds the most viable option at the moment! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I doubt Lloyds have anything to worry about. Their only duty is to report the transaction to comply with money laundering rules. If someone buys my house with dodgy money, the house might be confiscated but I get to keep the cash, in the same way that Lloyds sold their asset, the £18 million debt. Ticketus will have to chase Whyte and/or Rangers for the money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Paul Murray's bid was never going to be successful for the exact same reason his new bid will be unsuccessful. He has no means or ability to service any debt resulting from the Big Tax Case. When P Murray originally bid for the club he tried to leave the outstanding tax case with David Murray, there was no way David Murray would accept that so in my opinion that is why Lloyds demanded there debt be paid in full by any new owner. The bank saw a big liability and probable insolvency issue coming up and wanted their money up front. Craig Whyte was the only game in town who could fulfill the two main requirements 1. Take on any tax liabilities 2. Pay Lloyds immediately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadSaint Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 If David Murray could piss into a pot whilst strung up by the balls i would pay off the rangers debt myself. Colostomy ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Colostomy ? I know things in the NHS are bad but if they're replacing colostomy bags with colostomy pots things are going to get uncomfortable! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 BBC Website says under 'around the web' 'Rangers: The Impact of a season long campaign of fear and intimidation on officiating quality in the SPL' - FollowFollow.com Somebody's been totally ignoring the administration shenanagins then.. ; 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Anyone curious why Mad Vlad has not been joining in the grave dancing and has indeed been uncharacteristicly quiet about how slow the HMRC have been in chasing up Rangers PAYE and VAT shennanigans? This might explain, nicked from RTC.. However, Ogilvie seems likely to find himself in the unique position of being at the center of yet another tax avoidance/evasion storm. On leaving Rangers in 2005, Ogilvie joined the board of Heart of Midlothian FC, and in 2008 became managing director of the Edinburgh club. A source has contacted me with the story that the Scottish Professional Footballers Association (SPFA) has made a complaint about employment practices at Hearts. This came to light when a Hearts player applied for a mortgage. When presenting his salary advice, it was clear that he was on a rate close to the UK minimum wage. The player naively explained that he had lots of money, but that it was all paid overseas. The SPFA would obviously have concerns that Scottish players will appear expensive in an era of 50% marginal tax rates compared to low-tax (or no-tax?) foreign players. This raises a few questions: How many players are involved? How long have such practices been in effect? Are there players who have not been registered for tax at all in the UK? The scale of the Hearts problem is not yet fully known. If this has been standard practice over an extended number of years, then the bills, interest, and penalties could also be of a magnitude that could put the existence of Hearts at risk unless Mr. Romanov decides to dig deep into his personal reserves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Colostomy ? Isn't that a Police song? Please don't stand so ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Duff & Phelps say that the £24 million from Octopus Investments/Ticketus never reached Rangers' account. The funds from Ticketus didn't go through the club's account. They went through another company's account . They also went through that account at a time when that company and Whyte had no connection with Rangers apart from prospective bidder. I can see how under these circumstances that D&P are able to argue that the £24 million has nothing to do with Rangers. Edited March 9, 2012 by MacWatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 And if that deal falls through, they'll be perfectly entitled to their money back. It's not like you to be wrong, Harry. Ticketus bought the rights to future season ticket sales, on the assumption that Rangers fans would continue to buy those tickets. If those tickets are now not sold - due to Rangers ceasing to exist or anything else - Ticketus' money is gone. They chose to speculate on Rangers continuing to sell season tickets, and if Rangers now go bust and there aren't any season tickets to sell, then tough shit for them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Duff & Phelps say that the £24 million from Octopus Investments/Ticketus never reached Rangers' account. The funds from Ticketus didn't go through the club's account. They went through another company's account . They also went through that account at a time when that company and Whyte had no connection with Rangers apart from prospective bidder. How could he pay off Rangers debt before he had any connection to them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nijmegen bairn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sounds like the Devil is in the detail regarding the Ticketus deal. They appear to be under the impression the existance of their prior dealings with Rangers under Murray means the deal they signed with Whyte was with the same entity, however Whyte may have conned them by signing the papers on behalf of a hastily re-named shell company, which at a glance could pass for Rangers PLC, but actually owns bugger all. All too murky for any bystander to have a chance of seeing the end of at this point in proceedings I reckon. Meantime, heres something tasty from the BBC on their interpretation of the SFA player registration rules, which any club having players with two contracts has broken: According to the SFA registration rules, payments received by a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded and declared, otherwise the player has been improperly registered. If a player is deemed to be improperly registered, his team would be awarded a 3-0 defeat for each game in which he played. So That would mean they would be propping up division 3 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Anyone curious why Mad Vlad has not been joining in the grave dancing and has indeed been uncharacteristicly quiet about how slow the HMRC have been in chasing up Rangers PAYE and VAT shennanigans? This might explain, nicked from RTC.. For a while, a lot of Hearts' foreign players were "on loan" from Kaunas. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.