Frankie 8,150 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Well, we all have heard different names about who is involved and with what consortium but while a bit of 'my source this, my source that' is good fun; much better we stick to what information is available rather than facts based on innuendo. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 100% Frankie, watch this space. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 No, i'ts the same show, just the ringmaster is behind the curtain:cheers: You could be right, I'm just not sure what good the curtain is doing for anyone in such a scenario. Sometimes you can see the point of a subterfuge, a misdirection, call it what you want. In this case, it's not easy to see what it brings to anyone's table. In any case, it would be a bit of a relief to know that the buying of Rangers isn't entirely fiction - I don't suppose you can add any substance to the claim? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Thanks, Amo. It sounds as if what I posted the other day was correct, with much of his wealth being off-shore. Interesting to get some meat on the bones. I'll go through it in more detail when I get the chance, but a couple of things stick out. I don't really understand how a property company that's presumably been trading for under 10 years has a whole stack of property and no debt. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but just that I don't understand it (although no reason why I should - property isn't my area of expertise and if it was straightforward to do then everyone would be doing it). The issue about the dissolutions was never a big issue. I've dissolved a few companies myself over the years. However the passing the buck to the other directors for the failure to complete annual returns doesn't really answer the concerns. If he is a director of the company then he has a legal responsibility to ensure it is done. Perhaps it's not the biggest crime in the world and I fully accept that he wouldn't be bothered with such things, but he should be ensuring that his company secretary is up to doing their job or getting them replaced. Although not relevant to anything, but I know someone who is also looking to move into the hybrid roofing area. Could be that he's looking to do it as a franchise of Duffy's business. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 You could be right, I'm just not sure what good the curtain is doing for anyone in such a scenario. Sometimes you can see the point of a subterfuge, a misdirection, call it what you want. In this case, it's not easy to see what it brings to anyone's table. In any case, it would be a bit of a relief to know that the buying of Rangers isn't entirely fiction - I don't suppose you can add any substance to the claim? Don't get caught up in the details that's part of the smokescreen, all will be revealed. finances are allocated, end of. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Duffy has appeared to be open about his recent business dealings due to quite invasive questioning. Is it any wonder that other "consortium" members wish to remain anonymous for the moment. There must come a time when we have to start trusting anyone who has come forward to help the Club. I read somewhere recently that Jesus Christ was interested in buying into Rangers. However many supporters were suspicious of his motives and thought he had a hidden agenda. His religious connections in Palestine, his 12 "associates" etc. It was even claimed he only wore sandals with a long semmit and also was a "miracle worker" He would solve all our problems and make us happy but still he had some doubters. You get the picture. I might be naive but I think Duffy should be encouraged at this stage and not treated with as much suspicion. I would like to think our business lawyers, bankers, regulators and even SDM would ensure that anyone's proposals are in the best interests of the Club for now, and for the future. I personally believe that a deal has been signed, sealed and awaits deliverance when you consider some events over the past few months. For example Murray stepping down when he did, Johnston shoed in, no transfer expenditure pre season, coaching staff contracted to January (half way through the season just doesn't make sense) Murray has also said for some time that the Club was up for sale and I believe his "exit strategy" was put in place at least 2 years ago. By the way, I can't remember Dermot Desmond's business credentials being under such scrutiny when he bought in to "them." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Don't get caught up in the details that's part of the smokescreen, all will be revealed. finances are allocated, end of. As you say, time tells all and I guess you'll emerge saying 'I told you so' ..... or something else altogether. However, I'm sure the details will indeed be important in determining whether any such deal is a good one or not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Duffy has appeared to be open about his recent business dealings due to quite invasive questioning. Is it any wonder that other "consortium" members wish to remain anonymous for the moment. There must come a time when we have to start trusting anyone who has come forward to help the Club. I read somewhere recently that Jesus Christ was interested in buying into Rangers. However many supporters were suspicious of his motives and thought he had a hidden agenda. His religious connections in Palestine, his 12 "associates" etc. It was even claimed he only wore sandals with a long semmit and also was a "miracle worker" He would solve all our problems and make us happy but still he had some doubters. You get the picture. I might be naive but I think Duffy should be encouraged at this stage and not treated with as much suspicion. I would like to think our business lawyers, bankers, regulators and even SDM would ensure that anyone's proposals are in the best interests of the Club for now, and for the future. I personally believe that a deal has been signed, sealed and awaits deliverance when you consider some events over the past few months. For example Murray stepping down when he did, Johnston shoed in, no transfer expenditure pre season, coaching staff contracted to January (half way through the season just doesn't make sense) Murray has also said for some time that the Club was up for sale and I believe his "exit strategy" was put in place at least 2 years ago. By the way, I can't remember Dermot Desmond's business credentials being under such scrutiny when he bought in to "them." I see you're point but I think unquestioning acceptance has largely been the very devil that got us in the current mess. I hardly think it's counter-productive to show concern and want to base opinion on fact. No one who is honest and genuinely has the interests of the club at heart will be in any way discouraged by supporters showing caution and judgement. How else do we express our own concern after the events of recent years. I'm particularly not interested in the notion of blind trust. The very thought that lawyers, bankers, regulators and even SDM will put the club's interests first is highly amusing. In my experience, lawyers look after their own interests, as do bankers and I'm damned sure SDM does. You trust in others mate, I'll look at the facts I can see in front of me with my own eyes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 By the way, I can't remember Dermot Desmond's business credentials being under such scrutiny when he bought in to "them." You make some fair points mate but given the club's current position and our recent record with a single rich 'sugerdaddy' I don't blame any fan for showing doubt and asking the correct questions where required.# That isn't invasive but wholly prudent. If Duffy (or anyone else) is genuinely interested in being our 'saviour', then a few criticisms and questions (as well as a touch of mischief-making as he puts it) should be easily answered and water off a duck's back. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOneAmoruso 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 as well as a touch of mischief-making as he puts it I wondered if you would pick up on that. Interesting that he appears to have his finger on the pulse? 0 Quote Link to post 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.