aDONisSheep Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Oh I am not arguing that further changes and cost cutting would not have been needed alongside some prudent investment, nor am I arguing that some competitive success would still have been needed in order to meet budgets, qualifying for the CL twice in every 5 years for example. Of course we were never going to achieve that under a fraudster of course, a different genuine owner? I guess we will never know...Muir held a gun to Murray's head while he signed the death warrant of the oldco. Well if he did (and of course Murray says otherwise), it's because Murray had loaded the gun, put it in Muir's hand, painted a target on his face and shouted 'Muir you're a knvt!" repeatedly. There were 135,777k reasons why it made sense for the bank to get out, Murray hadn't followed through on his promises of 2000 or 2004 (and probably others). DeadRangers should never have been so financially weak. But they were, and it was because of Murray, not Lloyds. Yours aDONis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 This thread has turned into exactly what I imagine Dr Brian Cox arguing the beginning of the universe with Katie Hopkins would be like; someone with the facts trying to explain in simple language to an idiot who has her fingers in her ears and going LalalalalalalalIcanthearyoulalalalalala Guess who is who Exactly the attitude that saw their beloved club crash and burn in the most spectacular fashion imaginable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Which is something I have repeated many times, however it was Lloyds that forced the sale to Whyte which is why they had their man running things same as it was Lloyds who forced Murray to step down as Chairman. Personally I think Murray wanted to do the deal, so didn't take much persuading. Murray has said he didn't have to do the deal, and that had he known what was to happen, he wouldn't have done the deal (which is very much at odds with being forced to do the deal). My difficulty is that I think he's only marginally more truthful than Charlie Chuckles. In fact, I don't think there is anyone that was involved in the management of the DeadClub that can be trusted. Looking at that bunch of chancers and erse-coverers, Nookie might be the least guilty one :) Yours aDONis Edited November 21, 2014 by aDONisSheep 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 What's your opinion on the 'property valuations' is there a case for fraud or collusion between the auditors and Murray? Whyte could well have been duped by taking those figures as gospel ... just saying for arguments sake. Honestly no idea. All we know is that assets with a book value of £130million were sold for under £10million. I would (boldly!) suggest one figure is too high and the other too low (No Shit Sherlock!). One to keep the accounts look in shape and the other because of an alleged confidence trick. My opinion is that Whyte is a Patsy in this whole situation, whether he was aware he was the Patsy or not is the interesting question. Plus let's not forget he got all this for a quid. He wouldn't have cared either way about the property book values. He'd have known exactly what they were worth before he raided his piggy bank for some coppers and a few 5 pences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Well if he did (and of course Murray says otherwise), it's because Murray had loaded the gun, put it in Muir's hand, painted a target on his face and shouted 'Muir you're a knvt!" repeatedly. This is the sevco way in a nut-shell. Run up massive debts, it's the banks fault for calling time. Cheat for a couple of decades, it's the SFA/SPLs fault for bringing you to book. Sell the club to a patsy, to avoid facing the music yourself, it's the SFAs fault for allowing the club to be sold for a nugget. Lie, obfuscate, deny, avoid and obstruct HMRC for years and it's their fault for asking why you think you only owe 20p in income tax for the highest paid football team in the land. Invest your savings, your time, your effort, your love in a club. Buy shares, debentures and then lose it all because you decided to follow an organisation entirely devoid of morals and with a vile undertone of entitlement, discrimination, violence and threats, and it is the individual fans fault they lost everything. Oops! Looks like i tacked some reality on the end there. My bad! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 2 mins2 minutes ago Peter Lawwell reiterates the point that no #Rangers in top league costs them around £10m a year. #Celtic Pleasing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 2 mins2 minutes ago Peter Lawwell reiterates the point that no #Rangers in top league costs them around £10m a year. #Celtic Pleasing. A price worth paying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Wrong thread ... think you want the "Let's all laugh at Celtic" one .... We'll still be having a crack at the CL next season ... I'll go for both. Relevant here as well imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Wrong thread ... think you want the "Let's all laugh at Celtic" one .... We'll still be having a crack at the CL next season ... You’ve got it wrong. We are all here tae see The New Rangers die with a stake through the heart, never tae rise again. If that happens then Celtic will never get back that (alleged) loss of £10 million each year. But all is not lost. The Govan glory hunters will quickly support the ONLY team in Glasgow capable of reaching the dizzy heights of Europe, if not the world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 2 mins2 minutes ago Peter Lawwell reiterates the point that no #Rangers in top league costs them around £10m a year. #Celtic Pleasing. Wow, win, win! Sevco, the gift that keeps on giving! One thing that has become clear, is that fans of Whore FC only went because of the seethe-fest. The drop off in their numbers have been alarming pleasing! Long may it continue. Yours aDONis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Imagine it ... a 500,000,000 fanbase worldwide .... :lol: eggxactly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 if it is not an issue why even mention it? Easy. Big Peter runs Scottish fitba. Make everyone (including rangers) think Rangers are needed, then get them in the SPFL for the 10 mill revenue for Celtic, then use his Opus Dei like powers to ensure you languish there in mid table. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 This thread has turned into exactly what I imagine Dr Brian Cox arguing the beginning of the universe with Katie Hopkins would be like; someone with the facts trying to explain in simple language to an idiot who has her fingers in her ears and going “LalalalalalalalIcan’thearyoulalalalalala”… Guess who is who… I think you've given us a bit of a clue... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I think you've given us a bit of a clue... Yeah, but no but yeah but no... Which of our esteemed posters is the composite halfwit representing the idiot Holmes is what i meant, innit guv 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 2 mins2 minutes ago Peter Lawwell reiterates the point that no #Rangers in top league costs them around £10m a year. #Celtic Pleasing. Is there 2 Peter Lawwells? Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell insists his club "don't need Rangers" to flourish financially. Rangers are awaiting the verdict of a long-running tax case that could place the future of the Ibrox club in doubt. But Lawwell says the eventuality of their Old Firm rivals going bust "would have no material effect on Celtic". "We look after ourselves," Lawwell told BBC Scotland. "We don't rely on any other club. We are in a decent position, we're very strong." -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 It's a statement , not an issue. It's costing us 10 million (maybe) ... nothing the club cannot cope with. We are a long way from having "issues". I don't think we have spivs and onerous contracts coupled with Ally and his pals bleeding the company dry ... not according to our accounts .. Have yours turned up yet? Edit: When they do are you going to treat us all to another 'laughaton' magical analysis .... ? Densboy the accountant lol -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Densboy the accountant lol There's no accounting for your shite patter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Is there 2 Peter Lawwells? Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell insists his club "don't need Rangers" to flourish financially. Rangers are awaiting the verdict of a long-running tax case that could place the future of the Ibrox club in doubt. But Lawwell says the eventuality of their Old Firm rivals going bust "would have no material effect on Celtic". "We look after ourselves," Lawwell told BBC Scotland. "We don't rely on any other club. We are in a decent position, we're very strong." Just because the club could be £10m a year better off with a Rangers entity in the top league does not mean they cannot flourish without that entity in the top league. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'd argue that the £10m extra with a Rangers there might actually leave them considerably worse off if it means not winning the league and getting a shot at the Champions League cash. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 No no, according to dense he just feels like mentioning that Celtic are losing £10M per year without Rangers for absolutely no reason at all, it is just a random statement. He said they are Losing 10m a year? Really, is there 3 Peter Lawells? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Is there 2 Peter Lawwells? Yeah. They cloned him. It's a lot of work running Scottish football. 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.