the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 i like rm you can say all sorts of stuff and get away with it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 If I could be bothered with the arsing about to find the thread that said that 'this site is not happy with Murray's contribution' I would quote it to you. But I can't be arsed, especially when someone talks of 'sweeping generalisations' on a web site. Huh! Just to be clear, there's no site policy about liking Murray or not, for heaven's sake. You're probably fair in saying most people here are skeptical of Murray, but it comes in various shades of grey. You'll never be moderated for liking Murray, you'll just have to back up your opinion with some reasoned analysis as people will likely want to disagree. Any and all consensus here is (or at least ought to be) a product of discussion, not policy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 alot of mud is being thrown at the ibc but it concerns me that they are the only rangers fans who have seen the plan and they dont like it. at very least the only ones who dont stand to gain from it. Bain and McIntyre's jobs may have been put at risk by the statement so you would think that there has to be some substance behind their concerns. However the statement seemed to concerntrate on the tax case in particular and perhaps Whyte hasn't seen fit to share all of his plans with the IBC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 I'm not an expert in administration but it could be that Whyte securing the debt is protecting the club. If HMRC are owed cash but the administrator believes that it will get paid a small amount after the preferred creditor has been paid then perhaps some sort of deal can be done and Whyte can buy back the club on a pre-pack basis after "waiving" the amount due to Wavetower. Not sure if it works like that, but it may be one way of dealing with the threat at minimal risk. No expert here either, but that sounds very plausible to me. In the event of administration LBG could have done everything in their power to get as much of the debt back as quickly as possible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 i like rm you can say all sorts of stuff and get away with it. There's quite a lot of people here on Gersnet who post on RM and other forums too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 yes it did seem they werent getting all the information. do you know anything about the information thats to be given to shareholders. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 i know mate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Bain and McIntyre's jobs may have been put at risk by the statement so you would think that there has to be some substance behind their concerns. However the statement seemed to concerntrate on the tax case in particular and perhaps Whyte hasn't seen fit to share all of his plans with the IBC. A previous statement they released completely contradicted itself by saying that they weren't satisfied with the details of ongoing/future funding whilst further down the same statement saying that they were still waiting on the specific details of ongoing/future funding. Seemed a complete shambles of a statement to me at the time given that it contained such a glaring contradiction. You can't publicly state that you're unsatisfied with information you haven't fully received. Maybe it was just poorly worded or I'm missing something obvious. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 If I could be bothered with the arsing about to find the thread that said that 'this site is not happy with Murray's contribution' I would quote it to you. But I can't be arsed, especially when someone talks of 'sweeping generalisations' on a web site. Huh! Just to be clear, this particular forum (Gersnet) does NOT have a policy of being either pro OR anti-SDM - or indeed anything else for that matter. The admin and the moderators of this forum have PERSONAL opinions, very much individualised and often at odds with each other. There has never, in my time as an admin, been ANY site policy on any topic, other than how to manage and moderate the forum. So I am more than sure that you will NOT find any "this site is not happy with...." quote or statement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 from memory i though that was ok. the said the couldnt back the plan and the reasoning was they didnt have time or enough info to let them back it. also there was a plan b they felt they had to investigate. but i would need to see it again. 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.