CityDave Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So I take it the redundancies were to be able for the club to afford to take on Mark Wotte as director of football?. In a normal circumstance it might be viewed as a step in the right direction regarding the club's infrastructure and direction but given the latest news over the shortfall and that Wotte will be right away a high earner where will the money come from? So is the business plan at Rangers all about increasing revenue through spending?. Lesson definitely not learned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Who recanted? I said hopefully he would be remanded not that he would be but the expectation of many was that he would be bailed so there you go, still i'm very pleased he's been charged and now hopefully ,there's that word again, he gets a very substantial jail sentence. Can you please show where i stated that "there was no way Whyte would be remanded". You could maybe show me where I've stated that you said that. I mean you've used the quotation marks for a reason, right? A brief court appearance under petition and then hopefully remanded to Barlinnie as he has to be a flight risk. It's all coming home to roost for Craig, i wonder who else isn't sleeping very well lately. Always expected him to get bail, he's on a petition charge, if remanded in custody he would have to be brought for trial within 110 days, at least that's how it used to be in Scotland, it may well have changed. However the Crown now have a full year to get their legal indictments fully drawn up and in order for the trial. His passport has been surrendered, that's good enough to stop him absconding from the UK, although it would have been nice to have a condition of bail for him to be signing on at a police station every day. And yet today the fount of all knowledge knows there was no way Whyte would be remanded in custody. Anyone else remember when youngsy could hold an opinion our a point of view for more than twenty four hours before recanting? Direct quotes aren't necessary - I'll just leave your considered posts as to the possibilities - yesterday and today - for all to see. Kinda like holding the strong opinion that the club is the Plc until deciding that it isn't, really. Because it just isn't. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You and your obsession with Whyte has shown up a despicable part of your mind and your inability to rationally place the blame why Rangers est 1872 actually went tits up and died. Murray ran up all the bills that eventually led to your club dying. You may want to blame Whyte but it's not Whyte's fault the club was placed into a precarious financial predicament before Whyte bought the club. Sad fact is that you dismiss completely altogether that if Murray still owned the club season 2011/2012 is that the club would have went into administration far far earlier when Rangers failed epically in European football. You are showing yourself up to be a clueless despicable auld man with mental problems right off the radar. You really talk some amount of shite. Every Rangers fan knows the part Murray played in the financial breakdown, not one Rangers fan has denied it. As for your opinion, and that's all it is, you have no substantial proof when and if the club would have went into administration under Murray, it may well have happened, it may well not have, certainly if the EBT case had went against us it would have but that didn't happen. Read this and take it in; i blame Whyte for withholding the PAYE from HMRC which was the main cause of the liquidation of the PLC. Try and think who actually initiated the liquidation, it was HMRC, because of Whytes refusal to pay the PAYE and N.I. The fraud, as far as we are aware at this moment in time was initiated by Whyte and others, that's why they have been charged or can't you understand that. Like everyone else on this forum you keep covering old ground about the finances under Murray, that happened, Whyte took over, fraudulently according to the SFO, so try and focus on exactly where we are at this moment in time in all of this, instead of harping back to Murray, EBTs and such before Whyte came in, because we all know this, you're telling us nothing that we don't already know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You really talk some amount of shite. Every Rangers fan knows the part Murray played in the financial breakdown, not one Rangers fan has denied it. As for your opinion, and that's all it is, you have no substantial proof when and if the club would have went into administration under Murray, it may well have happened, it may well not have, certainly if the EBT case had went against us it would have but that didn't happen. Read this and take it in; i blame Whyte for withholding the PAYE from HMRC which was the main cause of the liquidation of the PLC. Try and think who actually initiated the liquidation, it was HMRC, because of Whytes refusal to pay the PAYE and N.I. The fraud, as far as we are aware at this moment in time was initiated by Whyte and others, that's why they have been charged or can't you understand that. Like everyone else on this forum you keep covering old ground about the finances under Murray, that happened, Whyte took over, fraudulently according to the SFO, so try and focus on exactly where we are at this moment in time in all of this, instead of harping back to Murray, EBTs and such before Whyte came in, because we all know this, you're telling us nothing that we don't already know. Was that while the Plc was the club, or afterwards? It's confusing enough for us outsiders - you berrz must really be confused, having to keep all this shit straight in your head. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Ever noticed how when the topic is 'Craig Whyte and the fraud case against him' some want to talk about anything but 'Craig Whyte and the fraud case against him' Maybe its just me. Nah, Little Grasp. I have noticed a tendency amongst one group of "simple fitba' fans" to lay the blame for over a decade of cheating, bullying, larceny and fraud at the feet of a single individual, mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 One thing about the Whyte appearance of note. His lawyer was Paul Kavanagh. Paul Kavanagh is the Green Brigade's go-to solicitor, who has represented numerous of their members in bigotry trials across the country! He couldn't afford HBQC's rates. I wouldn't take too much from who is lawyer is. The Devil is in the Retail Hmmmm would this be link to certain chin stroking wannabe journalists blog? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Nah, Little Grasp. I have noticed a tendency amongst one group of "simple fitba' fans" to lay the blame for over a decade of cheating, bullying, larceny and fraud at the feet of a single individual, mind. The fraud is being laid at the feet of five accused at this stage, charges have been prepared didn't you know that, not just one individual,although that particular individual may well be the main culprit in this fraudulent takeover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 He couldn't afford HBQC's rates. I wouldn't take too much from who is lawyer is. Hmmmm would this be link to certain chin stroking wannabe journalists blog? Who else could it be, it has to be his hero, McGillivan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Not true. It's because you are unable post anything without printing the full facts and distort the reality of actual events. SDM coughed and admitted tax liability for x number of cases before the tribunal .. HMRC are not finished with the old club yet and are still pursuing the rest. HMRC would have pursued this regardless of Whyte. As for Whyte he did not 'refuse' to pay .. he found himself in a position where he was definitely unable to pay, thanks to the cheeky chappie's unique brand of football management (chucking a 15 point lead and getting pumped out of Europe in double quick time). To use your brand of spin ... who knows if White would have paid or not (look how easy that was). Whyte probably has enough dirt on everyone to get a light sentence, he's more of patsy than a main player. Glad to see he got a lawyer that will fight for him ... smart boy. When you withhold payment of anything then that's a refusal to pay, Whyte refused to pay the PAYE, withholding that money was the catalyst for HMRC to initiate liquidation proccedings. Very much true. Aye, Whyte was a patsy rather than a main player. Ffs he initiated the fraud along with others, he's a main player without a doubt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The Devil is in the Retail Another link to the sectarian bigots site,are you Phil by any chance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 He couldn't afford HBQC's rates. I wouldn't take too much from who is lawyer is. Hmmmm would this be link to certain chin stroking wannabe journalists blog? Whyte has used Kavanagh before, Bennett. I'm sure he used him for a speeding charge a couple of years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Who else could it be, it has to be his hero, McGillivan. I'm sure he is Phil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You really talk some amount of shite. Every Rangers fan knows the part Murray played in the financial breakdown, not one Rangers fan has denied it. As for your opinion, and that's all it is, you have no substantial proof when and if the club would have went into administration under Murray, it may well have happened, it may well not have, certainly if the EBT case had went against us it would have but that didn't happen. Read this and take it in; i blame Whyte for withholding the PAYE from HMRC which was the main cause of the liquidation of the PLC. Try and think who actually initiated the liquidation, it was HMRC, because of Whytes refusal to pay the PAYE and N.I. The fraud, as far as we are aware at this moment in time was initiated by Whyte and others, that's why they have been charged or can't you understand that. Like everyone else on this forum you keep covering old ground about the finances under Murray, that happened, Whyte took over, fraudulently according to the SFO, so try and focus on exactly where we are at this moment in time in all of this, instead of harping back to Murray, EBTs and such before Whyte came in, because we all know this, you're telling us nothing that we don't already know. You truly are a bitter deluded auld man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The boatman Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Nah, norman, if you had ever bothered to actually pay attention to what Rangers fans were saying then you would know that most of us are highly critical of the likes of Murray though, some of the more level headed non Rangers fans have admitted this, you probably missed this too. Hardly conclusive. Up to date swamp poll , and remember this is after all his dodginess is know about. 58% to blame 42% not to blame 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Hardly conclusive. Up to date swamp poll , and remember this is after all his dodginess is know about. 58% to blame 42% not to blame Screenshot_2014-11-28-18-27-06.png Should Murray be amongst the accused? If the evidence is there then hammer him. Simples. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Hardly conclusive. Up to date swamp poll , and remember this is after all his dodginess is know about. 58% to blame 42% not to blame Screenshot_2014-11-28-18-27-06.png A poll on a football forum is definitely proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 No sign of the full accounts yet ? Why are you so desperate? You sat waiting with your trousers down, hoping to have a furious w*nk aint gonna make any difference? Reports that we need an £8 million injection over the next 12 months, does that satisfy your immediate needs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Nah, Little Grasp. I have noticed a tendency amongst one group of "simple fitba' fans" to lay the blame for over a decade of cheating, bullying, larceny and fraud at the feet of a single individual, mind. The fraud is being laid at the feet of five accused at this stage, charges have been prepared didn't you know that, not just one individual,although that particular individual may well be the main culprit in this fraudulent takeover. Of course I know that - hence my reference to a group of "simple fitba' fans" and not to the authorities. I thought this comprehension problem amongst ra berrz was a generational thing, but you're causing the same concerns now. That's twice today you've struggled with reading and understanding pretty simple concepts. I'll happily state right now that it is my firm belief the longest custodial handed out over this affair (and there could be quite a few) won't be a native of Motherwell. Not while he still has the pencil that can join the dots for the prosecution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Technically that's true, however there is huge difference between having the funds to pay now and the funds to pay at a later date. Business and companies refer to it as cash flow .. go look it up. Yes it may well be looked upon as cash flow but the fact is that HMRC initiated proccedings of liquidation because of the withholding of this money, nothing to do with the EBT case, that was still being contested, it was brought about because of Whyte refusing to pay. Go look it up, or better still ask Phil, he's very much neutral in all of this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You really talk some amount of shite. Every Rangers fan knows the part Murray played in the financial breakdown, not one Rangers fan has denied it. As for your opinion, and that's all it is, you have no substantial proof when and if the club would have went into administration under Murray, it may well have happened, it may well not have, certainly if the EBT case had went against us it would have but that didn't happen. Read this and take it in; i blame Whyte for withholding the PAYE from HMRC which was the main cause of the liquidation of the PLC. Try and think who actually initiated the liquidation, it was HMRC, because of Whytes refusal to pay the PAYE and N.I. The fraud, as far as we are aware at this moment in time was initiated by Whyte and others, that's why they have been charged or can't you understand that. Like everyone else on this forum you keep covering old ground about the finances under Murray, that happened, Whyte took over, fraudulently according to the SFO, so try and focus on exactly where we are at this moment in time in all of this, instead of harping back to Murray, EBTs and such before Whyte came in, because we all know this, you're telling us nothing that we don't already know. Dear, oh dear, youngsy. I'm surprised Tedi hasn't picked you up on this one. After all, he is such a stickler for correct grammar and punctuation. Did you never went to school as a child? If you had, I'm sure they would have taught you that the past participle of the verb "to go' is "gone" and not "went". In addition, when you use the conditional "if" it is unnecessary to use the conditional tense of the verb. What you should have said was "if the club had gone into administration under Murray".You are letting the side down by making out the average Bear to be a f*cking thick illiterate b*st*rd." 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.