crucible

one has been to jail the other hasn't.

 

can't see the comparison at all.

It is relatively simple when you think about it.

What has DK got to do with this? - he's not involved, Easdale is.

You 'll figure it out.

Go back to pre 28th November and i would have agreed to that. Not so sure now. I mean there was a guy there slating a FD whilst holding up a copy of our Year End Accounts and believing that £10m had went on Directors Salaries and Bonuses.

 

Im not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Deliberately mis-stating or just plain daft.

Still trying to equate Muir's role in the reduction of debt, was he defacto running the club as his patient.

A fair question, albeit sidestepping the point re Easdale.

 

Ideally, I wouldn't have DK as a director either. He can invest without being on the Board. However, there are important differences with Easdale's situation. DK's fraud charges were not pursued by the South African state, and he accepted liability in respect of 41 lesser counts of contravening section 75 of the Income Tax Act.

 

So, back to Easdale...any concerns at all?

Side step, I have no problem with Easdale his conviction is spent, BH fully narrated the criminal code under which DK admitted guilt and plea bargained to avoid jail time from the same court documents which I read..

I'm all for the rehabilitation of offenders, but given our recent history, I think we should have a higher bar for our Directors.

What sort of bar or free pass does DK receive if he were ever to become involved..

It's not a question of law, it's a question of trust.

I have no idea of your view but I do of the law's and rehabilitation of offenders.

spent doesn't mean that it is no longer on his record, only that he doesn't need to reveal it to potential employers. It doesn't change the fact that he is a convicted criminal. If he is convicted of another offence, the Judge will be able to take it into account when deciding on his sentance.

As I said his conviction is spent.

Well that's ok then.

It certainly is that's the way it works by law.

Interesting because boss used to insist the bank werent running the club. Rm is littered with threads saying it.

 

He seems an unreliable witness on that basis.

 

Oh and again I will point out the 4 years pm was on the rangers board were spectacularly succesful both on and off the pitch

You tend to say a lot about Boss and his figures, you never produce your oft threatened rebuttals.

1. Firstly, Paul stated that he was referring to matters which were "public record" The only "public record" when he joined was the previous years accounts. However, lets take a little walk. Its possible Paul would have had seen management accounts to month end August which would have been 2 trading months in which, more season ticket revenue would have came in, more match-day revenue would have came in, there would have been 70,000 x Champions League tickets sold for the 2 home ties as well as Hospitality and TV revenue. And against that as you have stated, there would have been the monthly running costs and any "up-front" player acquisitions. £3m at worst. Not £19m. And not "public record."

 

2. I stated what was on "public record" recorded as fact. I also know for a fact, though cannot prove it, that our Net Debt, which is certainly what he is talking about when he bands the £14m figure around, did not increase by £19m in the space of 2 operating months.

 

3. If you read the intro again, i clearly state the debt figure at 2011 is not fact and i state how i arrive at it. It is made crystal clear.

 

4. We did not pay all the transfers up front though. That can clearly be traced through the £7m increase in Creditors from June 30th 2007 to June 20th 2008 as well as being a known practice in the game. I think i do know what figures he was referring to, though not for FACT hence i didnt include it. The £35m is all debt, no cash, to make it sound HUGE and the £14m is Lloyds only but using a cash guesstimate to reduce it further.

 

If anyone was comparing apples and oranges, it was the person who made the claim in the first place.

 

PS - For the record, as at the time he left, HMRC had also submitted the Big Tax Case assessment which from a legal standpoint was considered a £24m debt.

Can you so to what extent if any you consider Donald Muir was responsible for debt reduction, as I recall WS said the bank was running the club.

http://is.gd/zbkwUR

So you're not concerned at Easdale's a criminal?

His conviction is spent.

Do you mean the CE Wallace that the reqs were also considering, can you flesh out your other concerns, can you enlarge on co-accused and your assets angle.

Yes we could go on like this posting facts, great idea.

Boss posted a succinct appraisal, PM never reduced any debt the bank and their place man did.

The Reqs the facts. http://www.rangersmedia.co.uk/requisitioners-the-facts/

I believe lawmans thrust is that murdoch totally misrepresented the truth with the acquiescence of others present, hence his final closing sentence.

I know this has been commented on but I was just looking through the accounts there and noticed something so thought I would go back to it.**During the meeting a week past on Thursday, Scott Murdoch said, and I quote:

“Im no mathematician but let me just read a piece out of the Annual Rangers accounts, ah yes it’s a horrible picture of Brian Stockbridge but eh basically….(some turnover figures)….the overall staff costs, this when Brian Stockbridge was the CFO, the Financial Director in all of this, the overall staff costs were £17.9 million quid, of which importantly, the player salaries are only £7.8m. So, roughly £10m was Directors remuneration and bonuses and payments at that time in this last 13 months and that’s FACT”

Now, immediately following this, there were many of us who pointed out it was a lie straight away as he had clearly forgotten about all the staff needed to run an operation the size of Rangers but there were counter arguments that these people are paid peanuts and we should forget all about them.

It only struck me when reading the accounts again just how wrong he actually was.

Lets take a look:

http://www.rangers.c...lReport2013.pdf

Page 34 – Item 7. Directors Emoluments

Brian Stockbridge - £409k

Charles Green - £933k

Malcolm Murray - £52k

Craig Mather - £59k

Walter Smith - £50k

Ian Hart - £28k

Bryan Smart – £28k

Phillip Cartmel - £29k

James Easdale - £0

Total pay including, salaries, fees, severance payments, bonus, Benefits in Kind was £1.589m

Now lets add Imran Ahmad in who wasn’t a Director as stated by Mr Murdoch but was probably in the firing line.**He took home £303k

Finally, there were a number of Related Party transactions which although im not sure where they appeared, I will include them as “Directors pay” for this exercise.**Total = £394k

So in total the “Directors remuneration, bonuses and other payments” totalled £2.6m, NOT £10m which also includes a non director and I have added “On costs” as well to the total.

Before anyone asks, the £7.8m was “first team playing squad” and therefore did not include all the coaching staff, of which we know the first team coaches and manager alone took around £1.5m, and all the youth players.**If the “category” was called Football Staff, the figure would have been in excess of £11m.

Add to this the £2.6m Directors package, NOT £10 MILLION SCOTT, and that leaves about £4m for the 150 non playing staff.

Mr Murdoch most definitely got one vital thing 100% spot on though.**He is certainly no mathematician.

When will the lying stop ?

There is an old adage about never ask a question unless you know the answer, why do I have the notion that there may be a sting in the tail here.

How does that affect his administration by Xmas gaff, can you provide the information for the board blocking him.

Wonder how King's prediction of administration by Xmas is working out, doubt he will be investing any Rands.

I comprehend it well, he bailed before the big day, no amount of spin will alter that.

No licence just an appraisal of what he said, strange he would bail before the big day.

I believe JM softened his stance when he bailed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2515867/Jim-McColl-says-work-Rangers-rebels-over.html

He's Murray's bogey man I believe.

i though jm had stepped away.

Had denotes the past tense, JM has departed.