Desert Nomad Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Desperate crawling by David Murray TBH, wonder if it'll be enough to dupe the massed ranks of bigots? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) It's a shame for David Murray. He's clearly blameless for this entire sorry episode It's quite incredible, the amount of people who are spouting blatant bullshit in this Rangers saga, and expect people to believe it. David Murray - 'I was duped, my advisors were duped, the bank was duped.... should never have sold to Whyte...' In the name of the wee man (not Chick), does he think anyone, even someone who posts regularly on Rangers Media, will believe even one word of this? I'd actually have more respect for Minty Moonbeams if he just came out with the truth, which I believe to be.... 'My business empire was in trouble, my years of reckless spending and cheating at Rangers was starting to catch up on me. The bank wanted their money, and I could see the shit just about to hit the fan big time - I needed out, and quick. No-one of any substance or integrity would touch the mess I'd made with a shitty stick... but fcuk me, if Del Boy Whyte didn't turn up at my door one day with a cunning plan. It was very complicated, and to be honest, I didn't understand a lot of it. The wee bug-eyed creep lost me when talk of Ticketus, Octopus, Wavetower, Lloyds, Duff & Phelps, administration, liquidation, and a newco Rangers all started to blend into one. I just nodded, and said, yeah, yeah, yeah... whatever. All I needed to know was, will we get away with it? If you give me a quid, and I walk away, is this the last I'll hear of this? My name will be left well out of it? You pay off Lloyds, shut them up and get them off my case, then you can crack on shafting everyone in sight - get a nice wedge for yourself, then piss off back to Monaco, leaving some other saps to pick up the pieces? Wow, sounds great, I can't see the back of this shite quick enough. Right Whytey, it's a deal. One problem though - there'll be some questions, a bit of paperwork to fill out. My advisors will need to see something to keep them happy. Tell you what, I'll set up a meeting with them next week. You bring some I.D.... a utility bill, driving licence, something with your name and address on it, that'll do the trick. Magic, right I'm off for a Starbucks, see you next week Whytey. Boosh, job done.' ...obviously I'm just guessing this is what really happened. Edited March 14, 2012 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 So we've had Duped David, Jilted John Greig, Gordon is a moron Smith , Bail-out Bain, and Craig the Creepy Crook. A list of extras for the next Pirates of the Caribbean? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 So we've had Duped David, Jilted John Greig, Gordon is a moron Smith , Bail-out Bain, and Craig the Creepy Crook. A list of extras for the next Pirates of the Caribbean? Hopefully we get to see Keira the Shag. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Hopefully we get to see Keira the Shag. You can't deny McShaggers burd the 'lovely' Leah a part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I don't know if anyone else has mentioned it earlier but that IBAN number for international payments looks wrong too. I think Royal Bank is GB90RBOS not GB90BOS. Certainly if you use RBS's IBAN checker the one on the sign it shows up as unrecognised but add in the missing R it shows up. Have a go yourself- https://www.natwest.com/apps/secure/tools/iban_new/Iban/IBAN_Checker.aspx?Theme=rbs It's definitely wrong all RBS Swift codes need the RBOS. What a bunch of fannies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 It's definitely wrong all RBS Swift codes need the RBOS. What a bunch of fannies. There's a blatant and idiotic typo' error, the paypal details were wrong, and the RBS details were wrong.... and there's Ally McCoist and Sandy Jardine fronting the thing, standing there holding it, and urging Rangers supporters to dig deep and send money.... and in the papers, they're stressing that none of their money will go to Craig Whyte, but will go to Duff & Phelps to use 'as and when they need it'... they'll need it alright. When they finalise their whopping bill. This is actually quite sad. Trotting out Rangers legends, who clearly have no idea what on earth is going on, to beg for money using a badly executed roller-graphic with shocking mistakes. Yeah, I'd send my money to that, no worries.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4193183/Murray-I-am-sorry-for-selling-Rangers-to-Whyte.html I LOVE that Murray has basically said "Yeah, we Googled Whyte and everything seemed kosher. Whadda mistaka to maka" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Murray also stating categorically there were no dual contracts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Murray also stating categorically there were no dual contracts. He also effectively confirmed that the side letter in the Sun was genuine and not unique, and indicated that they would not have been lodged with the SFA/SPL. Whether they amount to a "second contract" is open to interpretation and I'm sure will be argued over in legal terms. They don't even need to be "a second contract" to be against the rules. If they weren't lodged then there's a question there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Murray also stating categorically there were no dual contracts. I believe him. He's the man who sold Rangers for one pound, and thought everything was in order and above board. His judgement cannot be called into question. Rangers are innocent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I believe him. He's the man who sold Rangers for one pound, and thought everything was in order and above board. His judgement cannot be called into question. Rangers are innocent. That read just like the findings of the pending investigation report by the SFA................no doubt ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Murray also stating categorically there were no dual contracts. He would wouldn't he. It reminds me of watching John Terry's press conference on the news, where he denies that there are a core of players controlling the dressing room. Well if JT says so it must be true after all he's not a scumbag liar at all is he? Nor is there a trail of sacked managers to confirm it. Same goes double for Moonbeams Murray, with a trail of addendum letters in this case to confirm dual contracts (if the courts find it that way). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 In the David Murray story linked earlier, Murray talks about the 'sniff test' to determine if someone is fit and proper - basically, do you get the gut feeling this guy is genuine, or can you sniff something fishy. In explaining why he thought Whyte ticked the boxes, Murray says 'he was Scottish, he wasn't a foreigner...' Dear oh dear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Nomad Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) I believe him. He's the man who sold Rangers for one pound, and thought everything was in order and above board. His judgement cannot be called into question. Rangers are innocent. Obviously not innocent per se, but I remain sceptical of the dual contracts story until some concrete proof arrives. Edit: here's a little more http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile//sport/football/ogilvie-wasnt-involved-in-paying-people.17017403 Edited March 14, 2012 by Desert Nomad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Obviously not innocent per se, but I remain sceptical of the dual contracts story until some concrete proof arrives. I was just displaying my cynical side - if Murray says there were no double-contracts, that's good enough for me, he's not likely to get anything as important as that wrong, is he? Ahem, cough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Obviously not innocent per se, but I remain sceptical of the dual contracts story until some concrete proof arrives. Giving Rangers the benefit of the doubt? SPLITTER!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I think Murray probably did think whyte was above board, he did the same to other companies and they didn't realise till it was too late, the only surprise is none of them came up before it happened as it was well known he was taking over the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 @elpaisinenglish: Spanish soccer clubs owe a total of 752 million euros to the government in taxes, according to a written ... http://t.co/wM6M2e8v So rangers really are chicken feed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Obviously not innocent per se, but I remain sceptical of the dual contracts story until some concrete proof arrives. Edit: here's a little more http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile//sport/football/ogilvie-wasnt-involved-in-paying-people.17017403 I don't think it is necessarily being suggested that there were literally two contracts - one for the SFA to see and another one for the player. The suggestion is that the side letters regarding EBTs could be construed as "a second contract". This is based on the apparent indication that those payments were not merely "discretionary" but were linked directly to appearances in the team. To my knowledge the only evidence so far in the public domain is the letter in The Sun from a few weeks ago. Murray does seem to confirm that that was genuine and was not unique. He is arguing that it was not a second contract and was merely a "letter of intent". (If that's the crux of the argument in trying to appeal against a crippling tax liability then it's no wonder they're not expected to win that case!). 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.