Bluedell 5,329 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Personally, I think he can only be referring to mischief with tongue firmly in cheek. Totally agree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union City Blue 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I find it impossible to believe Mr Duffy is as thin-skinned as to take genuine offence at website comments. If he thinks there is something of a more deep-rooted agenda against him then he must be receiving it from elsewhere? Personally, I think he can only be referring to mischief with tongue firmly in cheek. I agree, I doubt he's thin-skinned. No idea if he perceives an agenda against him or not. No idea if he was tongue-in-cheek or not. It's impossible to tell. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Amen to that Bluedell... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union City Blue 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 There's far more important things to worry about, and hopefully things can move on. The focus should be elsewhere. I agree, that's what I was saying 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 As I posted the other day, anybody stepping out of the shadows relating to buying Rangers would inevitibly know that they will be scrutinised and their credentials verified. However, if Mr. Duffy perceives the Rangersmedia article as "mischievous" it cannot be in the bit least surprising given the headline, the sarcastic mocking opening directed at him, and the author's conclusion where he stated that "he wouldn't be investing" and was "out". Anyway, we move on and whether Duffy wants to dwell on this criticism is up to him - although I'd doubt it. Of course, it wasn't just the article author who had come to that conclusion but many fans on RM and other forums - including FF. That article is also exactly why we have these two further interviews today. Ergo, I'm sure Boss will be saying 'job done' this morning - even if he may reconsider any future article content very carefully to avoid some of the crap we've seen be thrown since. Like you and Bluedell say, we move on though so today's comments from Duffy and the Assembly are most welcome in that regard. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 "I strategically moved my business affairs to the Bahamas to legally permit global trading. Bahamian law protects the interests of shareholders and directors and this information is not for public consumption." The last part is all I need to know, credibility is all, there is none here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 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. Re the property he does mention that the property is "funded solely by the shareholders". So, perhaps, his shareholders are high net worth indivuiduals who believed enough in him to fund him with significant amounts of cash as share capital and, possibly, share capital premiums. This begs the question of how much of these businesses he is telling us of, and the values he is telling us of, are actually his. It is one thing to have an investment property portfolio in the company of $1 billion but if he only personally owns 0.1% of that then he only owns $1 million of it. The total value of the portfolio doesnt tell us anything of what HE brings to the table. Agreed re the dissolutions, they often are no big issue. There is still a legal responsibility to complete Companies House mandated forms. I sure hope Mr Duffy has heard of joint and several liability amongst Directors & Officers. Nice to see some more meat to the bones though. For the avoidance of doubt, I am most certainly not anti-Graham Duffy - just inquisitive by nature and questions will be asked. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 "I strategically moved my business affairs to the Bahamas to legally permit global trading. Bahamian law protects the interests of shareholders and directors and this information is not for public consumption." The last part is all I need to know, credibility is all, there is none here. I don't see why the fact that his business is off-shore means he is not credible. It's just smart tax planning. It's standard for such things not to be disclosed when off-shore. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I don't see why the fact that his business is off-shore means he is not credible. It's just smart tax planning. It's standard for such things not to be disclosed when off-shore. It has nothing to do with off shore, it has all to do with expecting the public, the public being Rangers fans, to entrust your idea with cash. At the same time as refusing to reveal all about your business structure and affairs, if you feel comfortable with that scenario I wish you luck, it wouldn't get past a junior bank officer in the real world. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 It has nothing to do with off shore, it has all to do with expecting the public, the public being Rangers fans, to entrust your idea with cash. At the same time as refusing to reveal all about your business structure and affairs, if you feel comfortable with that scenario I wish you luck, it wouldn't get past a junior bank officer in the real world. I'd imagine if there are other serious parties in this consortium they'll be a bit more enquiring than any junior bank officer. As such if Duffy has to open up his finances to anyone, they'll make sure he does so. If and when that happens, hopefully we can then trust the other names that will inevitably appear before Xmas. 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.