Grantly Group ââ?¬â?? insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts

[Bluedell 5,329]

I have had a very quick look through various aspects and opinions regarding the situation, it appears everything is built on a remark made by the manager Smith, about bank involvement.

Despite the authoritive sources of the financial situation stating that his statement/remark has no basis in fact, it looks as if the manager Smith has been elevated to the role of financial expert as well.

It looks to me like acres of print built on nothing more than the remark of the manager, people really should take a reality check, as to fact and fiction.

 

It isn't just based on Walter's comments. The fact that the bank were in at the club was known since before the end of last season.

[Frankie 8,148]

Responding to abuse is a little bit different than just dishing it out willy nilly.

 

Don't think it's really necessary from either side but it's not for me to explain.

 

 

Just to be clear the initial insults were directed at me in the absence of anything similar from myself other than simple and relevant questions.

 

At no point have I abused or insulted anyone.

[Totti 0]

I have had a very quick look through various aspects and opinions regarding the situation, it appears everything is built on a remark made by the manager Smith, about bank involvement.

Despite the authoritive sources of the financial situation stating that his statement/remark has no basis in fact, it looks as if the manager Smith has been elevated to the role of financial expert as well.

It looks to me like acres of print built on nothing more than the remark of the manager, people really should take a reality check, as to fact and fiction.

No players purchased in 18 months, a bank representative at board level etc suggest otherwise.

 

While the timing of the announcement no doubt deflected some of the Unirea criticism, it isn't a comment without foundation.

 

And Lloyds aren't going to come out and say 'yes, we're running Rangers'. What companies say and what they do are two different entities.

 

Rangers are a mess at every level off the field and on it.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Banks, their officers in particular, and companies in general are prohibited by law from making false or vexatious statements knowing them to be untrue. If you choose to believe the word of the Rangers manager over the word of the Bank, the club and the present chairman that is your right, there is not one piece of hard evidence financial or otherwise to back up your belief, Murray has also stated that he employs Muir, if that was factually incorrect the bank are duty bound to correct it, they have not. There does appear to be a lot of unfounded mischief being put about, but to the benefit of who, I have my own idea on that, but will keep my powder dry in the meantime.

[rbr 1,247]

There you go adding stuff afterwards again....

 

Like I say, that is good news if that is shown to be the case. So the Trust have not had any negotiations with Duffy at all then?

 

 

This was the reply from DavidRST when I asked about Duffy ,

 

 

Because his partners wish to remain anonymous doesn't mean we don't know who they are. Similarly, there seems to be an assumption that we didn't know the stuff in that article until we read it.

 

Like I say, we aren't committing to anything or anybody yet.

 

 

They may not have talked to Duffy but that isn't the inferrence I take from this answer , I might be totally wrong but there you go .

[Bluedell 5,329]

This was the reply from DavidRST when I asked about Duffy ,

 

 

Because his partners wish to remain anonymous doesn't mean we don't know who they are. Similarly, there seems to be an assumption that we didn't know the stuff in that article until we read it.

 

Like I say, we aren't committing to anything or anybody yet.

 

 

They may not have talked to Duffy but that isn't the inferrence I take from this answer , I might be totally wrong but there you go .

 

I guess there is an assumption and nobody in the RST has come out and stated that they did know, but have come out with inferences instead. FWIW, I can't say I'm too concerned that they didn't know. It appears it's early days and can't be expected to know everything, and I would think that as much information, good and bad, about people who may be getting involved in our club can only be of benefit, as long as it's factual.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Banks, their officers in particular, and companies in general are prohibited by law from making false or vexatious statements knowing them to be untrue. If you choose to believe the word of the Rangers manager over the word of the Bank, the club and the present chairman that is your right, there is not one piece of hard evidence financial or otherwise to back up your belief, Murray has also stated that he employs Muir, if that was factually incorrect the bank are duty bound to correct it, they have not. There does appear to be a lot of unfounded mischief being put about, but to the benefit of who, I have my own idea on that, but will keep my powder dry in the meantime.

 

Most statements are open to interpretation.

 

Did Walter and the other club employees mean that the bank were deciding on what cleaning company cleans the offices? No.

 

Did they mean that the bank had withheld renewal of the banking facility, had a physical prescence in the club, were preventing the club from buying anyone and preventing walter from being offered a new contract. Probably.

 

The bank could point to the first and say that proves they aren't running the club and their statement was truthful. Walter could point to the second and say that it proves his statement was truthful.

 

If you believe Walter was lying and take the bank's statement at face value then that's your right, but I fail to see why people were saying that the bank were in at the club for months before Walter's statement if it wasn't true.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Bluedell

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

I guess there is an assumption and nobody in the RST has come out and stated that they did know, but have come out with inferences instead. FWIW, I can't say I'm too concerned that they didn't know. It appears it's early days and can't be expected to know everything, and I would think that as much information, good and bad, about people who may be getting involved in our club can only be of benefit, as long as it's factual.

 

Hey Bluedell, good to speak to you again.

 

I think you're line of thinking is correct. Good and bad information is of course much appreciated to gain a broader picture. What could also be of benefit though is information which is concrete and full in it's content rather than information portrayed as bad which could in fact be irrelevant.

[Frankie 8,148]

I guess there is an assumption and nobody in the RST has come out and stated that they did know, but have come out with inferences instead. FWIW, I can't say I'm too concerned that they didn't know. It appears it's early days and can't be expected to know everything, and I would think that as much information, good and bad, about people who may be getting involved in our club can only be of benefit, as long as it's factual.

 

That sounds about right to me...

[Frankie 8,148]

 

I think you're line of thinking is correct. Good and bad information is of course much appreciated to gain a broader picture. What could also be of benefit though is information which is concrete and full in it's content rather than information portrayed as bad which could in fact be irrelevant.

 

Yes, that is perhaps true. All the more reason for the Trust to be up front about whether they've met with the guy or not. Maybe they're trying to do this by proxy via the removal of the NOTW story but who can say for sure.