forlanssister

The club had spiralled out of control long before Paul Murray joined the board in September 2007, look at the running of the club from September 2007 till the sale to Whyte if you're going to judge Paul Murray. Paul Murray was a non-executive director of the club he received no financial remuneration from Rangers for that role. The only non-executive to receive payment for being a non-executive was John Greig who received the princely sum of £1250 in 2009. Any journalist worth their salt would be questioning why given LBG's prior relationship with Craig Whyte why they, their placements on the board nor David Murray never informed the other members of RFC's board about the fact of Craig Whyte's banning as a company director and also why the shareholders and PLUS Market were not informed. Any journalist worth their salt should be investigating the source of funding for Liberty Capital in the BVI and whether it comes from one of the half dozen or so LBG subsidiaries in the BVI. Any journalist worth their salt would be investigating whether Whyte is a willing Patsy brought on board to do what neither LBG nor David Murray could be seen to countenance and picking up a few bob for his troubles or just a naive chancer way,way,way out of his depth. Who in their right mind buys a house for £1 in the knowledge that it could well take 50 million times as much to fix it? The "bid" you refer to was not a "bid" it was an offer to recapitalise the club with £25m (fully underwritten) new money which would have resulted in David Murray not receiving so much as one penny and having his shareholding diluted to such an extent that he would have became almost irrelevant but he would still have had to face the music if the big tax case hit the fan now he can turn round and say, "wisnae me gov" likewise LBG got off the hook, do you really think that either Murray or LBG could have publicly countenanced placing us into administration or even worse liquidation? If Whyte had done as he said he would and put his money where his mouth is then we wouldn't be in the state we are just now facing court actions on a weekly basis.

If Carter-Ruck had advised him he had a case he'd sue the BBC in England, maybe Mr Whyte is having cold feet at the prospect of being cross-examined on oath in open court by some of the country's leading QC's, who knows what skeletons may then fall out of the cupboard. It is far easier for the BBC via their counsel to tarnish whatever reputation he has in open court than it is on air. I would imagine the "chap" from the Insolvency Service was perfectly aware of the ramifications of what he was saying and was cleared to do so not only by his bosses but by his departments legal advisers. As things stand at present the report into Whyte's banning for 7 years as a Company Director is covered by an "absolute exemption" which means it cannot be released via a Freedom of Information request, however that could very well change if he takes the BBC to court and they convince a Judge to release it. Of course if there's nothing in that report that could cause concern for Rangers shareholders, (and fans) creditors et al then Whyte could release it himself, and then we may discover the actual "technicality".

Perhaps we'll get the chance to ask him pertinent questions at the AGM, then again probably not.

I think Whyte is way out of his depth and will go as soon as is possible as long as he can get "his" money back. There are absolutely no examples in his business history of having turned around a business of this scale in fact is there any example of him having turned around any business at all ? He is only here because neither Murray nor LBG could countenance being at the helm and having to press the "A" button while Whyte will do it without compunction in fact he has no problem pressing the "L" button if it's in his financial interest to do so regardless of the consequences.

Indeed it is, too many seem to assume that both are one and the same when they are patently not. The crux may come in the shape of a partial victory in the tax case, if judgement goes against to the tune of £15-20m does he waive the 'loan and "invest" further monies to cover that or does he think "f*&K that I want 'my' £18m back"?

It matters if those who can remove the "dark cloud" will not invest in the club if Whyte is at the helm.

Do you mean investors who will: A) Invest with Whyte at the helm ? or B) Invest with the condition he gets to F*&K asap ?

Caveat to my original reply, I don't for one minute think Whyte will lose most of "his" £18m.

Sadly I think scenario E is the most likely outcome, and what a f*&king mess that will be!

It will become a weekly occurrence till the shit finally hits the fan (a rather poor metaphor I concede).

On the contrary I think it is his goal and there's bugger all anyone can do to stop him, this has always been the sum of the parts is greater than the whole deal. You can dress it up anyway you like but Whyte's total risk is £1.

Close Leasing now have a fixed charge which takes precedent over the floating charge. http://www.mediafire.com/?mazxgblc77gsch7

Pity we didn't sign Bocanegra and Goian a month earlier than we did.

Alas i think you're 100% correct. For such a super duper successful "billionaire" he seems to have made a few costly mistakes already during his short tenure as custodian.

Yes it wasn't shown despite being advertised last night. Maybe they feel severely pissed off.

What happened to Part Two scheduled for tonight ? Did STV take umbrage at Whyte doing them up like a kipper? Why did, " I have nothing to hide" turn down an invitation for an interview today from STV?

Agreed, this is a self inflicted wound something that Whyte seems adept at going by his performance so far.

It will be interesting to see exactly which points of the programme Whyte issues the libel writ for. I have my doubts about seeing him in the witness stand being cross-examined by one of country's top QC's.

It's on the BBC news channel at half past midnight.

I think that a Bank would have used the opportunity to deny that they resorted to "blackmail" if indeed they hadn't.

Must be getting old, remember all the brass plates outside my solicitors with names of the companies registered at that particular address.

They had the opportunity to deny Johnston's claim but didn't do so, that in itself should enough to prove Johnston's claim. Contrary to the view of the vast majority of our support Alastair Johnson is not stupid and would've been fully aware of the possible consequences regarding his claim.

There will be a plaque at Jordan's Corporate Secretarial Services with your companies name on it or at some information confirming that it is the registered office of your company, no?

Is the brass plaque no longer obligatory?

Hope the second half is more fruitful because that was pretty pointless.