sjc Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) Interesting article in the Herald here. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/donald-muir-the-banks-inside-man-at-ibrox-has-questions-to-answer.16995762 'Muir and David Grier go way back. They've known each other for years. This time last year, Muir was on the Rangers board and Grier was the turnaround specialist advising Whyte on his takeover. Now Grier is a partner in Duff and Phelps, the administrators Whyte succeeded in appointing. So did Muir and Grier know that Whyte intended to fund the buy-out by flogging future season tickets rather than using his own money? How come Whyte felt he had the authority to go to Ticketus and get a £24m advance on the season tickets on April 7 last year, 28 days before the takeover went through? Ticketus had done previous deals with Rangers, remember. When Whyte offered to flog them Ibrox season tickets, it's unthinkable that they would do anything other than pick up the phone to someone at the club and check his authenticity and credentials to sell. If Lloyds were "running the club", and Muir was its man on the board, did he give that approval?' Of course Grier is now one of the 4 who actually have been arrested and charged. Your assumption that the bank approved anything is still pie in the sky straw clutching.I agree that they colluded but SDM was the legal owner of the Club that would have had to have signed off the deal.For example: I employ an Accountant to do my personal & Company annual accounts but I'm legally responsible for signing them off. Edited November 26, 2014 by sjc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I'm struggling to keep up here Isn't the problem with the Ticketus deal not so much that it was struck (with an uncertain amount of Murray involvement) but that it was effectively reneged on once Craig Whyte was in charge? Or have I missed something 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 everton now after lewis mcleod http://www.theevertonforum.co.uk/everton-plot-move-rangers-youngster/ Yay.......Salary can begin amassing his warchest.................. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 What a guy. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30196603 Shame so many Bears are blinded by bitterness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I would love it if they could implicate SDM, however I very much doubt his word was worth much either, Murray was completely beholding to Lloyds with all of his companies heavily in debt, why on earth would ticketus trust him any more than they would believe Whyte? If that assurance was coming from the bank's inside man however? but regardless of who (you or whoever think) was running the Club SDM was the legal owner of the Club therefore the legal entity and therefore responsible for the transaction to Whyte. Totally agree that the only legal approval was SDM's. The bank was in favour and would not have stopped him since they simply wanted their money. Responsibility for the deal was entirely down to Murray as the owner and majority shareholder .... I doubt Muir's signature was on the sale document (edit: unless he was a witness). Maybe Tedi will prove us wrong though ... but doubt it. I'm struggling to keep up here Isn't the problem with the Ticketus deal not so much that it was struck (with an uncertain amount of Murray involvement) but that it was effectively reneged on once Craig Whyte was in charge? Or have I missed something Guys !, Ticketus and Lloyds are two completely separate transactions all together and shouldn't be linked together as one transaction. First SDM needs to clear off the clubs bank debt to get a loan, but he is skint and needs to find a buyer to pay off the clubs debt, but there is no one willing to do this. The Patsy ?, Craig Whyte. How does Whyte know how to get a loan from Ticketus ?. Surely he was given a hand towards using Ticketus to get a loan selling off future ST's at Ibrox. Here is the key here !, Whyte must be the owner of the club FIRST before Ticketus will do business with Whyte and that is a legal requirement. The club gets sold for a pound and there will have legally binding contracts for Whyte to clear off the debt with Lloyd's AFTER the sale of the club. Whyte is now the owner of the club and can then access funds from Ticketus to pay off the clubs debt and it was done. Lloyd's are happy and SDM is happy and the club is fucked over and the fans have been shafted but hey ho ?, do you think SDM cares one iota now ? The Ticketus money was NOT used to buy the club, Whyte just went into his pocket and gave SDM a pound coin then a signature and the club belongs to Whyte. What is at the centre of this is the fact that the clubs debt had to be cleared, not because the club had to but because SDM needed a loan. The Ticketus money was never used to buy the club but was most likely there was a legally drafted agreement between SDM & Whyte that Whyte would clear of the clubs debt to Lloyds after the completion of the sale of the club. I know some are posting proof of funds for clearing the bank debt ?, once Whyte bought the club he was guaranteed the Ticketus money as the owner if Whyte had made a pre-contract with them once he became the next Rangers PLC owner FFS. SDM is up to his neck in this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Agree with much of that Hb, but Ticketus still gave a crook like Whyte 18mil before he owned the club. Which is nuts in my book. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die hard doonhamer Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 What a guy. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30196603 Shame so many Bears are blinded by bitterness. Naismith comes across as a top guy. They did a similar piece on him in the summer about the work he does with a charity near where he grew up. Deserves all the success that comes to him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yeah sounds like a really top guy who hasn't forgotten where he came from. Proud to have him represent Scotland, and at least someone fighting against the stereotypical image of the modern successful footballer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Because they had an assurance from the bank and banks do not deliberately screw companies over for profit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30146247 Did they? I though the assurances came from Whyte and his lawyers. Hence Withey's involvement in the clusterfuck. Still can't believe we let that clown in our boardroom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 What a guy. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30196603 Shame so many Bears are blinded by bitterness Who's blinded? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Who's blinded? A lot of Bears, or have I got it wrong and he's not blindly hated by most of the Rangers support? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 A lot of Bears, or have I got it wrong and he's not blindly hated by most of the Rangers support? I must have missed the i must hate Naismith memo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 A lot of Bears, or have I got it wrong and he's not blindly hated by most of the Rangers support? Those supporters are not representative of the Rangers support. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I must have missed the i must hate Naismith memo. Perhaps you're smarter than the average Bear Benny. Those supporters are not representative of the Rangers support. Yet more who are not. Didn't McCoist have the cheek to have a pop at him as well? utter c**t. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=100933 Must have been at work...... baws. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Perhaps you're smarter than the average Bear Benny. Yet more who are not. Didn't McCoist have the cheek to have a pop at him as well? utter c**t. Couldn't say about McCoist, i do know though that Naismith does a lot for kids football teams in the Liverpool area when the kids teams are taken to Finch Farm, Evertons training complex. He always makes himself available for the young kids when he is there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 And the rest according to that article. Hard to tell obviously but like I said just seems like a top bloke. IIRC McCoist had a pop at him for "leaving the club", looking after no.1 and attempted to foster ill feeling against him. Some cheek considering he's ripped the pish out the entire support. Good to see most of you didn't fall for it. Although AWRA used to get in right state about him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Who's blinded? Blinded by bitterness, not you, you can acknowledge someone's charity work and still be bitter. Forget the inaccuracies written by the Fox Sport reporter. The point is here are 2 Americans who until they came to Scotland had no feelings towards the club whatsoever..They have successful international careers and realistic hopes of going to the next World Cup but didn't turn their backs on the club like so many of the 'Rangers' men such as Davis,Lafferty,Naismith and McGregor. McCulloch offered to play for nothing. He made the offer in a letter to the club from his solicitor. This offer was made before liquidation and he was the one who talked the players into the pay cut they took that saved so many jobs. To say he was only slightly more loyal than the likes of Naismith and that snake Lafferty is doing him a disservice 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Offt. Cheers Dave, yer quite handy with that search function. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) I've already said most of "our" bears seemed not to fall for the trap. I was more referring to his, admittedly mild, criticism of Naismith. Not sure it's even fair to call him a money grabber tbh. I'd guess every player who either left or joined the newco weighed it up on a cost/benefit analysis. The money grabber charger could just as easily be made on those who TUPE'd over because they'd never have got wages like that anywhere else. And like you I would never criticise a player for looking after number one either, sure we'd all do the same. Edited November 27, 2014 by AberdeenBud 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.