~~~ Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 They're very easy to please, you would have thought some of them might have known the difference between a poster and a mural though.. My link Vanguard Bears The same group who are still backing Craig Whyte 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booker-T Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 don't be surprised to see a minimum of 2 former directors having their Paul Bosvelt by the long arm of the law after this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I might register as Mr Craig Whyte and pledge a pound. Damnit, I was going to pledge £33 million OF MY OWN MONEY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 The more I read the more this mental image pops up in my head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nEs1WOfHD8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoTeamGaz Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think that's a bit naive. Last week at the QOS v Aberdeen game open all mics, Richard Gordon was speaking about this with Chic and others, in short these guys all sometimes see evidence (RG specified this) but it's only shown to them, and is not in their possession. Without concrete proof of its existence, they are in a very difficult legal position and will not run such stories. have you seen some of the nonsense, conjecture, rumour & supposition they print? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Daily Record are getting tore right into Whyte i see TUESDAY June 14, 2011 – the day I knew the man in charge of Rangers was lying through his teeth and covering up a secret plan to put a 140-year-old institution at risk of ruin.That was the day the Record reported for the first time that Whyte had made his big move to sell off four years' worth of season ticket sales. The response from this odd little man was instant and emphatic. I was banned from Ibrox forthwith, my story dismissed as a pack of lies. During a heated telephone conversation with Whyte the following day, he even told me my story – which was based upon a document he'd registered at Companies House – was littered with inaccuracies. In fact, he said, what he had done by submitting that paperwork was protecting those tickets, not mortgaging them off. How very silly of me. Our story had stated: "Record Sport has been alerted to a Companies House document in the names of Whyte and his newly appointed right-hand man in the boardroom, Phil Betts. This has raised concerns among prominent supporters at Ibrox. "Analysts say the document could signal Whyte's intent to mortgage off the next four years' worth of season ticket money as a security against some form of loan." We added: "Rangers season-ticket holders will want to know where their hard-earned cash is going and if Whyte plans to use it to finance his initial takeover, which saw him agree to wipe out an £18million debt with Lloyds Bank." After my ban, Whyte went further. He invited his pet paper The Scottish Sun and The Herald along for interviews. In the Herald, he said: "Contrary to a report elsewhere this week, no form has been signed that would allow season-ticket money to be used as a guarantee against any future loans." Also handed a sit-down was Tom English from Scotland on Sunday, who said Whyte was "incensed" with the Record. It added: "After a bout of apoplexy, he got to thinking where this story might have come from. 'I don't know, but I hear that some of the previous directors are still sniping away in the background, still trying to cause trouble where they can. I think it's a pity that some of these guys didn't go gracefully instead of going disgracefully.'" This morning, Whyte may be wise to consider taking his own advice. But he won't. The breakdown in his relationship with the truth has gone too far. Fast forward eight months or so, James Traynor and I are finally given the go-ahead by the Record legal experts to print the same story all over again after learning that HMRC had launched a full scale probe into £5million in missing VAT money from the season ticket deal. You know, that one that Whyte didn't do. This time, we have all the figures and dates. We even know that the £24.4million was handed over to his lawyers, Collyer Bristow, before the takeover had been completed. In other words, he'd sold season tickets which weren't even his to sell. Whyte is finally forced to tell the truth... well, almost. This time he admits tranches of tickets were sold off, while strenuously denying that he used any of the proceeds to pay off the club's £18million debt to Lloyds Bank. On the club's website on January 31, he lied: "In the most lurid terms, the Record accuses the club's management, and specifically me, of using supporters' money to help fund the buyout of Rangers. Not true. "The Daily Record's approach to this story sought to distort and dramatise the matter. I for one will not be reading or buying the Daily Record again and I'm sure many other Rangers fans will share my disgust at yet another smear on this club." Rangers fans might have been a little more disgusted two weeks later when Whyte finally plunged their club into the carnage of administration. Yesterday, however, Whyte was left with no more room to manoeuvre and no more lies to tell. He had been rumbled. But let's hope, at least, he sticks to his promise never to buy a Daily Record again. Mr Whyte, your sort are simply not welcome. In fact, let's just say you can officially consider yourself BANNED. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Who are Rangers fans supporting on Saturday, the team that's made you their bitches or the 1 that's gonnae? Edited February 23, 2012 by Gaz FFC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussy Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Can any of those who are better informed shed some light on this? In Part III of this document there are a number of clauses stipulated about Whyte's takeover, are those legally binding in any way or could he/the previous board just have made up all that as they went along (although it states that he isn't responsible for that section) to please the shareholders with no repercussion for themselves or rangers other than the debt extinguished bit in 1H? Also, and I know this probably makes me sound very silly 'cause I keep reading reports which mention it but I haven't a clue, what does extinguishing the debt actually mean? I'm actually starting to enjoy becoming a hobbyist in snooping and reading about contract law and accounting 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 have you seen some of the nonsense, conjecture, rumour & supposition they print? I haven't seen much in the way of material that is libellous. A wee difference (IMO) in printing empty stories about player transfers and reporting on serious financial malpractice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I don't think it's the case that season ticket sales were so low that they did not sell out of the tickets bought by Ticketus, unless Rangers have had a dramatic fall in season ticket sales I hadn't heard about. I think the missing payment is just a result of Whyte deciding that he needed some of that money now, and renegotiating the deal so that Ticketus instead get the money in three years time. And while I have absolutely nothing to back this up with, my understanding was that Ticketus only bought tickets to events likely to be a sell out and only a percentage of those available, so wouldn't need a guarantee of a certain level of sales. Even if Ticketus were concerned about not selling enough, it seems more likely that they'd simply pay less per ticket so they'd still turn a profit if all their tickets didn't sell. The guarantee Whyte is talking about is only to ensure that if Rangers were not selling season tickets or if the price of them had lowered dramatically, Ticketus would be due their money back. But as I say, I could be completely wrong about that. That makes sense. Can any of those who are better informed shed some light on this? In Part III of this document there are a number of clauses stipulated about Whyte's takeover, are those legally binding in any way or could he/the previous board just have made up all that as they went along (although it states that he isn't responsible for that section) to please the shareholders with no repercussion for themselves or rangers other than the debt extinguished bit in 1H? Also, and I know this probably makes me sound very silly 'cause I keep reading reports which mention it but I haven't a clue, what does extinguishing the debt actually mean? I'm actually starting to enjoy becoming a hobbyist in snooping and reading about contract law and accounting Some very interesting points in there. Would be good if someone with more legal knowledge explained some of the significances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I see Portsmouth have made 30 redundancies after 5 days of administration and I seem to recall that the axe fell pretty swiftly in previous admins (anyone remember how long for Livi, Dundee etc?). I don't wish the sack on anyone but how have Rangers made it this far without laying anybody off? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 I see Portsmouth have made 30 redundancies after 5 days of administration and I seem to recall that the axe fell pretty swiftly in previous admins (anyone remember how long for Livi, Dundee etc?). I don't wish the sack on anyone but how have Rangers made it this far without laying anybody off? ... because the big house must stay open, and they are the people? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 ... because the big house must stay open, and they are the people? Wow! Maybe they were actually right all along?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betting competition Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I see Portsmouth have made 30 redundancies after 5 days of administration and I seem to recall that the axe fell pretty swiftly in previous admins (anyone remember how long for Livi, Dundee etc?). I don't wish the sack on anyone but how have Rangers made it this far without laying anybody off? I sure someone mentioned on radio scotland that it could be friday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I sure someone mentioned on radio scotland that it could be friday. I still think it's shocking they tried to sign Cousin (with the administrators blessing) on a deal worth £5k a week. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I still think it's shocking they tried to sign Cousin (with the administrators blessing) on a deal worth £5k a week. There is a theory that the reason the administrators are pursuing that is that Cousin was paid his whole wages in advance - ie the money's already spent so nothing to lose. Just a theory, mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Portsmouth struggling to make it the end of the season Bit of a contrast to Rangers administrators "On a daily basis we are talking to department heads and seeing where there is capacity for cost savings but being very mindful of the need to both to preserve the performance on the pitch and retain the efficiency of the club off the pitch as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I see Portsmouth have made 30 redundancies after 5 days of administration and I seem to recall that the axe fell pretty swiftly in previous admins (anyone remember how long for Livi, Dundee etc?). I don't wish the sack on anyone but how have Rangers made it this far without laying anybody off? I was just thinking that it seems to be taking an extraordinary amount of time for the Administrators to be seen to be taking any measures to reduce outgoings. One non 1st team player moved on is hardly making any impact. Whittaker, McGregor and Davis will have amassed around 100K in wages alone since the club entered administration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I still think it's shocking they tried to sign Cousin (with the administrators blessing) on a deal worth £5k a week. I think it's shocking that a club, whose Chairman says are losing £10 million a year and therefore need to lose £800,000 per month off a wage bill, are so thick, they actually thought it would be OK to take someone else on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Also reported today that white paid for a kitchen upgrade at ibrox financed by flogging of future catering profits in a ticketus like deal...... :lol: http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/298783-craig-whyte-mortgaged-rangers-catering-income-to-upgrade-kitchens-at-ibrox/ Edited February 23, 2012 by THE KING 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.