Bluedell

It doesn't even mean that. He has to say that he believes that we will win because if he doesn't the HMRC can use it against us. Even if he believes that there is a 90% chance we will lose he has to keep repeating the mantra publicly that we will win. It's one occasion that I don't mind him lying to us.

Sorry mate, but can you use full stops at the end of your sentences as your first paragraph is really difficult to read without them? It's not obvious that the £5m includes wages. It's far from obvious given the wording in the legal document issued to shareholders. I don't classify paying wages as "investing in the playing squad". I agree that we shouldn't be spending money just for the sake of it, but why did Whyte lead the support to think that we would be doing so if he didn't plan to do it? Everyone would have understood if he'd put caveats into his "promises" but he didn't and therefore he has to accept the criticism that comes his way.

Is the £7m saving that he's looking for going towards the £5m spend that he's committed to? Or is that a silly question and the £5m spend just going to be largely funded by the sale of existing players as appears to have happened this summer?

"Sources" were always Hay McKerron, Whyte's PR people. I believe that the support have been misled. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he had outlined his plans from the beginning instead of having his PR people release bullshit like £15m in season 1 etc.

Changed message now that he owns the club.

Craig Whyte, centre, the Rangers owner and chairman, told a press conference: 'I didn't buy the club to see it fail'. When Craig Whyte met Scotland's written media on Monday, he insisted that such a catch-up had always been planned. The Rangers chairman and owner said he had merely brought forward the discussion "given the negative, malicious coverage we have had in the last week or so". What cannot be denied is that Rangers have been in the spotlight, and in a way which was alien to them during the free-spending, occasionally brash years of the past decade. Whyte said: "We have inherited a mess from the previous management." The shape of Rangers' future depends on the extent – or otherwise – of that damage. Their biggest challenge in the coming months will not be defending the Scottish Premier League title claimed in May but attempting to see off HM Revenue & Customs. The taxman is chasing Rangers over employee benefit trust payments to players, a historic loophole which the authorities have subsequently closed. If that case goes against them, estimates have put the potential bill as running to tens of millions of pounds. With that in mind, Whyte's refusal to rule out a slip into administration is hardly a surprise. He denied, though, that Rangers could go bust. "I didn't buy the club to see it fail," Whyte said. "Who knows what happens with the tribunal? Our advice is that we will win the case. If it becomes the case that we don't, then let's deal with that. "Rangers will be playing at Ibrox long after we are all dead and buried. The club is not going under. I can assure everybody that, whatever happens, in the worst-case scenario, Rangers will still be here." Yet other negative tales have entered the public domain. HMRC is seeking a further £2.8m plus a £1.4m penalty from Rangers, with sheriff officers appearing at Ibrox this month in relation to that case. Part of the bill was later subject to an arrestment order in Rangers' bank account. "If someone sends a bill we don't just send the money and not check it out," was Whyte's explanation for that. "I hadn't seen the papers for it and until my advisers and I had gone through the papers with a toothcomb there was no way that was going to be paid." Added to a subsequent court appearance over a £35,000 bill to Rangers from a legal firm, the picture to most onlookers is far from rosy. In Glasgow, it never takes much to fuel football speculation. Whyte is adamant that a whispering campaign is taking place. "I think there's no doubt about that," he said. "There are people who want to besmirch the reputation of the club and see it fail. "I'm absolutely determined to sort out the issues that need to be sorted out. There are going to be some very tough decisions to be made in the weeks and months ahead. I'm absolutely up for doing it. I'm going to sort it." Bold words. Over the weekend, legal papers relating to an unfair dismissal claim, made against Rangers by their former chief executive Martin Bain, cast further doubt on the club's solvency. Whyte flatly denied the suggestion that he has mortgaged season-ticket income as a means to borrow money. He also admitted Rangers have no current credit facility with a bank but claimed £80m worth of assets are on their balance sheet. Whyte cleared an £18m debt owed by Rangers to Lloyds Banking Group. That debt was transferred from Lloyds to Whyte's company, Rangers FC Group Ltd. The fact he remains a creditor for that amount is almost certainly a safeguard in case administration is forthcoming. Part of the scepticism towards Whyte stems from the lack of information about the Motherwell businessman's life and dealings pre-Rangers. That is in direct contrast to the scenario when the previous chairman, Sir David Murray, bought his shares in the club in 1988. Whyte is perfectly open about the fact that outgoings have to be cut. That is symptomatic, he stressed, of a wider picture. "I think the main thing is that people have to get real," Whyte added. "We are stuck in Scottish football here. Our costs are significantly more than the income we are bringing in. We have got to get to the stage where we at least break even and live within our means. We are very far from being there at the moment. "We have a situation where we are geared up to be in the Champions League every season, that's the cost base we have got. As we know, it is much, much harder to get there now. "There seems to be this attitude that we should throw money at things, that we should go and spend £5m or £10m on transfers every season. I think the days of doing that in Scottish football probably now are gone." That is a fair assessment. Whether it is being used as a cover-up line for problems specific to Rangers, only time will tell. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/sep/12/craig-whyte-rangers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Ffootball%2Frss+%28Football%29 :surprised:

I don't think that the article inferred anything about insolvency. The worst thing about it was that it was just a rehash of the same article that the ET had printed a few days earlier. Angry? I stopped buying the Herald many years ago due to their anti-Rangers agenda. This is very tame compared to the other crap that they've printed over the years and I just can't get excited about it. Spiers continues to print far worse stuff and no action is being taken. I just think that they've picked the wrong fight,

Which part was lies? Had we paid the cash when the story was printed?

What was wrong with what was being reported? Of all the things that are written about us, this is what they choose to go to war on? Very strange.

He's one of the few who is willing to go public with the issue. What other journalist or pundit has EVER mentioned it at half time in a TV studio during a match, because I can't think of any? It's a major embarrassment to Celtic as it goes against the party line that they don't have a problem of any sort. As for him not doing it in the past, people change. I would guess many bears' views on what is and is not acceptable have changed in the past 25 years.

Were you at the Aberdeen game?

So you believe everything that comes out from the club? There was no formal offer from another club and the agent may have been trying to get a deal in place before tyrning round to the other club to see if they would be interested. If the club were that serious then why didn't they contact Rangers directly to negotiate given how close it was to the deadline? Going through a third party is only going to waste valuable time. Who is backing Celtic?

If he's fit enough to play to games for Scotland then he should be fit enough to play in a tricky away game, particularly with no game mid-week (that's correct isn't it?) We aren't good enough that we can afford to rest one of our best players.

Wylde in front of Naismith? :surprised:

There were a few on here, including myself who didn't believe it. I'm sure you're right about the last part though.

Given the emails were with a third party, it sounds as if it was more of an enquiry than a formal bid.

Hutton's chances of playing for our first team are going to be fairly limited again this season so I'm more than happy for him to go elsewhere and get a game and develop. He will develop far more playing every week than if he does getting 15 minutes once every 6 weeks. I hope that the loans do go through.

Penalties around 50% are not that uncommon, as far as I'm aware. However I would have thought that it would not be appropriate in this case given that the company volunteered it, and a smaller percentage would be applied.

What's that? �£100K? Out of �£2.8m. Why not pay the �£2.8m now? The clock is still running and more interest is being charged every day it remains unpaid, costing the club even more. Whyte may be contesting the penalties but the interest will be non-negotiable, and I don't see them being successful over the penalties either although it's certainly worth trying to appeal them.

Teams have done it with season ticket income before. Leeds spring to mind. Usually a sign of financial problems.

The details match what has been registered with Companies House. You could pay �£1 to double check the details but I don't doubt the OP and don't doubt that the scans are real.

But surely he had that money already when he agreed to by the club for �£6m that was later reduced to �£1?

They are doing better but it feels a bit like damning with faint praise at the moment.

I fail to see the relevance of the performance of the previous regime when reviewing Whyte's performance. The �£2.8m tax bill should not be an issue to Whyte as the puchase price of the club was reduced by �£5m or 6m to account for it. As for Miller leaving, I doubt that the new regime would have been able to put tgether a contract to meet his Turkey wages either. There does deserve to be a lot of criticism about the fact that Ally wanted a striker and they failed to deliver. Putting in an offer to Dundee Utd and then withdrawing it for a worse one is a dreadful way to do business. I don't believe that whyte has delivered morally on what he promised in respect of transfer funds (despite what the small print says) and the commitment of �£5m was made before we won the league so he had no idea whether we had a chance to qualify for the CL or not so the fact that we didn't get to the group stages should not have any impact on the cash available to spend.

Coz GF1 is full of ST holders already.