Fotbawmad Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 I heard D&P have been completely exonerated and cleared of any wrong doing since it wasn't proven at the time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpungoMcGoo Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Armageddon Files Part 2: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-armageddon-files-2/ Basically, 40 out of 42 Scottish football clubs gained financially from Rangers' liquidation. And the two that didn't aren't the two you probably think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) Armageddon Files Part 2: http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-armageddon-files-2/ Basically, 40 out of 42 Scottish football clubs gained financially from Rangers' liquidation. And the two that didn't aren't the two you probably think. The SPL's prize money was changed for this season. The extra money for 2nd place was essentially spread around the other clubs. Not sure if it will affect the positive/negative though. EDIT: What's your source for the CL being worth nearly £2m to Motherwell? The UEFA website has it as €140,000. Edited May 23, 2013 by craigkillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpungoMcGoo Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) The SPL's prize money was changed for this season. The extra money for 2nd place was essentially spread around the other clubs. Not sure if it will affect the positive/negative though. EDIT: What's your source for the CL being worth nearly £2m to Motherwell? The UEFA website has it as €140,000. That link says: "each of the 20 clubs participating in the play-offs will collect a fixed amount of €2.1m." "The play-offs" is what UEFA calls the qualifying rounds before the group stages. Your 140K figure refers to the "solidarity" payments, which are a separate thing. As for the SPL, my figures are based on what STV lists as the CURRENT payments: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/226511-revealed-the-different-financial-models-which-will-decide-reconstruction/ I'm sure this season's payments will be made on that basis, with the new ones taking effect from next year (if agreed). Edited May 23, 2013 by SpungoMcGoo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 That link says: "each of the 20 clubs participating in the play-offs will collect a fixed amount of €2.1m." "The play-offs" is what UEFA calls the qualifying rounds before the group stages. Your 140K figure refers to the "solidarity" payments, which are a separate thing. As for the SPL, my figures are based on what STV lists as the CURRENT payments: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/226511-revealed-the-different-financial-models-which-will-decide-reconstruction/ I'm sure this season's payments will be made on that basis, with the new ones taking effect from next year (if agreed). No. "The Play-off Round" is specifically the qualifying round prior to the group stage, equivalent to a 4th Qualifying Round. The fact that it mentions that only 20 teams are involved is the clue to that. The bit at the bottom says "each side eliminated in the third qualifying round of the UEFA Champions League will get €140,000". That's the round which Motherwell were eliminated at. The SPL clubs voted through a prize money rule specifically relating to this season. Money was taken away from the 2nd placed club and redistributed between those from 4th-12th. It was discussed at length on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpungoMcGoo Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 So why are STV calling it only one of two possible "proposals"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Jesus H Christ.... Shown up as a fud again Benny because you have again avoided answering my question because you already know I'm right . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Now that takes me back. I seem to recall getting a plastic 'Captain 5' being used in my school. By god did that hurt when it was hammered against your legs! Back than Scotland qualified for world cups and Rangers (as was) and Celtic had a 'dignified' rivalry. Thats why I support Ayr! Brings back memories of a leather bladder worn down so that when it gets wet and waterlogged it really hurt when you got one in the face . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 I heard D&P have been completely exonerated and cleared of any wrong doing since it wasn't proven at the time The BDO might have something else to say if they find dirt . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Shown up as a fud again Benny because you have again avoided answering my question because you already know I'm right . TBH i can't recall what you posted and can't be arsed searching for it, so i'll assume it was your usual brand of made up shlte. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 TBH i can't recall what you posted and can't be arsed searching for it, so i'll assume it was your usual brand of made up shlte. You are a complete waste of time so piss off . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 "Anti-embarrassment" measures. :lol: How vain. How ironic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Tales of Greek hitme n and oodles of lucre in the latest from charlotte .... On 29 Oct 2012, at 08:16, earley aidan <aidanearley@blueyonder.co.u k > Dear Imran Without prejudice Craig was understandably upset to see the piece in the Daily Record (of all places)and the article on the Rangers website. This is in addition to the consistently negative comments from Charles about Craig and also threats to Craig's life from Charles using,apparently, people that Charles knows in Greece (Craig has heard this from two independent sources). Dealing with the last point first, ordinarily one could consider such threats to be merelyposturing until one considers the relatively restricted number of options available toCharles at the moment none of which, other than a fair settlement, are attractive. Allof a sudden "getting rid of the problem" becomes more appealing however insanesuch a course of action would be. Whatever the substance of the threats they hardly make Craig more receptive toreaching a settlement. Moving on to the articles in the Daily Record and on the website, presumably somegenius concluded that by acting in this way any action Craig might take would beneutralised (in contrast to the solemn undertaking by Charles to make it his businessto do his utmost to help Craig be welcome back at Rangers by using every opportunityto say something positive). In fact, ignoring entirely the background as they do, thecomments have only made Craig more likely to act and the hole that has been dugcorrespondingly larger.I am keen to avoid this going to court it will be a catastrophe of an intensity that youor Charles or both clearly do not appear to understand at all. The action will involve a claim for 53% of Sevco and Rangers, the arrestment of allSevco and Rangers assets, pending the trial, the necessity at trial to rely upon thevoice recordings evidence (which incidentally I had no idea had been recorded)including "you are Sevco" quotes from Charles, the claim that the attempt to moveassets/the benefit of the sale and purchase agreement to Sevco Scotland wasfraudulent - to name only some of the actions being prepared. Craig's argument willbe that Sevco retained you as a broker (and Zeus) to raise cash with Charles frontingthe deal and that, yes, you raised the money and would be entitled to broker commission on that but then tried to steal the deal. It will be Craig's intention to sueZeus as well. And you can be sure that once the genie is out it will have a life of its own that none of us can predict and it will not be possible to put it back in. Anyonewho thinks they can predict a scenario where it will go according to their plan is a fool. The only person who will potentially come out looking better however will be Craig.Not least because his reputation has been so badly hit to date it cannot get anyworse and the litigation will demonstrate method in what currently appears madness.It is also important that you are disabused of the idea that by playing for time the floatcan be achieved and then a settlement reached or avoided altogether Craig is notthat stupid. You would really have to be living with the kind of lack of self-awareness that yousuggested Craig had, to think that the float could go ahead and the Scottishestablishment and media would do anything other than go completely and irreversiblyincandescent. The allegations of having been misleading levelled at Craig would paleby comparison - and any false reassurance you may have given each other aboutmanaging the fallout would swiftly be brushed aside in the fury. I am therefore very keen to avoid this (I just want a calm life!). I believe that I canpersuade Craig not to push the button and, indeed, have stopped an immediatehostile response to the Daily Record and Rangers website articles (not to mention theother negative comments from Charles about Craig). Distasteful as you may think it,this can all be avoided by a simple intake of breath and signing a settlement that isreasonable in the circumstances (not forgetting also that the Mike Ashley J/V wasintroduced effectively via Craig). However the settlement needs to look as follows: 1) The immediate return of the £167,500 2) £500,000 in cash 3) 25% of the shares that you and Charles are due 4) The hospitality benefits agreed in the office and signed by you although these can be granted to a company to spare you anyembarrassment in the light of the unhelpful recent comments in the press 5) A proper attempt by Charles over time to say positive things aboutCraig perhaps a look at the recent articles onhttp://www.thecoplandroad.org/2012/10/craig-whyte-speaks-to-fans.htmlmay help him. 6) An appropriate and tactful correction to be issued within seven daysof the float or within 90 days (whichever is earlier) in relation to theDaily Record, Ally McCoist , Sandy Jardine and Lindsay Herroncomments7) A twelve month option to acquire yours and Charles remaining 75%interest at a 50% premium to the float price and a right of first refusal to match the price if you decide to sell after the twelve months haveexpiredCraig is willing to accept this if it is accepted within 72 hours and it is non-negotiable there isnt time and if he wanted to negotiate he would have started at a higher figure. We are more than happy for this agreement to be with a corporate entity should youwish and the retention by Craig of a stake aligns his interests with yours Now, you may say that your previous £1m cash plus benefits offer (signed by you andnot signed subject to Board approval) was subject to you being able to persuade others(but according to you - you had already told them that any settlement needed tohave seven figures in it, and you were right!). However in reality, as you know, thedecision-makers are actually you and Charles in this respect and the Board was alsoeffectively controlled by you anyway. In addition, don't forget, I was supposed to begetting 25% of whatever you, Charles and Rafat got. I am willing to throw that into thepot in order to reach an overall settlement. If, in fact, the Board only agreed to the £500,000 that you more recently offered andyou cannot get them - or do not want to tell them - to see sense then the shortfallshould clearly be made up by a simple transfer of shares or cash from you andCharles. I would gently point out that rather than feel hard done by or give in to greed, youshould remember that the only reason that you and Charles have control of possiblythe pre-eminent Scottish institution was because "you were the chosen ones" as Duff and Phelps said. This proposed settlement is a small price to pay to continue to belauded as you are and to have the benefit of a multi-million pound payday. It is notrational to put that in jeopardy by begrudging Craig and I a reasonable share of that particularly as Craig and, to a lesser extent, I (but still very painful) have borne the bulkof the grief in delivering a debt free Rangers that can go on and do great things. In terms of timing, the £167,500 needs to be immediate so that Craig does not thinkhe is being strung along and the remaining aspects of the agreement need to besigned off within seven working days, with half the £500,000 payable on signing andthe balance on successful float or within 90 days whichever is earlier.You should remember that the value of the opportunity delivered to you is reflected bythe necessity that Charles sign the various documents. Had it not been an absolutelyessential part of allowing you both into the deal, Charles would clearly prefer not tohave done so. The payment of the above is the release from that reality and istherefore eminently fair and reasonable.I am letting you know this, in plain terms, as a friend and as a favour but also because I dont want to get sucked into an unimaginable maelstrom which will absolutely and inevitably be the case if an amicable settlement is not reached. Time is short. Regards Aidan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Hitmen and and and and and ...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 hahahaha thats a belter.. greek assassins.. expect samaras to wear a get carter tshirt with craigy whyte in the target sights 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Twice ? Am I being whooshed ? No, I missed one. :oops Easily done, so many around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 unimaginable maelstrom -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Rangers board to decide Malcolm Murray’s fate Malcolm Murray (left) welcoming the appointment of Craig Mather as the interim chief executive last month. Picture: PA Published on 24/05/2013 13:37 The future of Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray is again in doubt as reports of an emergency directors meeting emerged today. • Fears that Walter Smith could leave position at Rangers • Increasingly uneasy relationship between Murray and the board. The embattled chairman has been under intense pressure following a bitterpower struggle for control of the Ibrox club, and it is thought the meeting could spell the end for Murray. The Rangers board have accused Murray of inappropriate conduct such asleaking sensitive club information to newspapapers and to former director Paul Murray. He is also accused of plotting to oust finance director Brian Stockbridge, who appeared to “stitch up” the chairman by releasing video of Murray drunk on a night out. Murray, still has backing from sections of the board - most notably former manager Walter Smith - but his increasingly precarious position with other quarters is likely to signal the end for Murray. Walter Smith has threatened to leave his role at Rangers over the way the board has handled the attempt to remove Murray. A source told the Sun: “Murray would probably have gone by now if it wasn’t for the fact that the board are desperate for Walter Smith to stay. “There are a lot of dirty tricks behind the scenes and at least this meeting should make people come clean about what they want.” The 57-year-old spent most of his career in investment and pension fund management. Murray is a life long Rangers fan, so was seen as an ideal figure head for the board when appointed as non-executive chairman last June, two months after Charles Green led the purchase of the club. Last week secret recordings were unearthed which appeared to confirm that Charles Green ally Imran Ahmad had fired Murray months ago, but Green and Ahmad had given the chairman a stay until the end of the season. The relationship soon turned sour, with reports of unrest between Green and Murray leading to the board giving Murray a vote of no confidence after in emerged Green had made attempts to remove him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) heard today from a reliable source (rangers fan)that within the next two to three weeks there will be major developments at greyskull. chuckie and my little ###i friend are involved. Edited May 24, 2013 by lithgierose 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Whens the last time there wasnt major developments at greyskull involving him? Sent from my GT-I9300 using Pie & Bovril mobile app 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.