Zappa 0 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Craig, I assumed that der Berliner would follow my train of thought, since I'm sure he remembers that he's had previous discussions on here regarding the merits of discussing club matters on Rangers message boards and writing Rangers related articles in comparison to the work done by the RST. It's a comparison that I don't see the point in and I don't think there's any need for pro or anti RST snobbery on the matter either. It's already been pointed out to der Berliner that there are plenty of RST members on this forum. That's all I have to say on the matter except that I didn't intend to offend der Berliner and if it came accross as otherwise, then I'm sure der Berliner is big enough to fight his own corner. Regarding the list of company events thing, if you can't be bothered, that's ok. No big deal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Craig, I assumed that der Berliner would follow my train of thought, since I'm sure he remembers that he's had previous discussions on here regarding the merits of discussing club matters on Rangers message boards and writing Rangers related articles in comparison to the work done by the RST. It's a comparison that I don't see the point in and I don't think there's any need for pro or anti RST snobbery on the matter either. It's already been pointed out to der Berliner that there are plenty of RST members on this forum. That's all I have to say on the matter except that I didn't intend to offend der Berliner and if it came accross as otherwise, then I'm sure der Berliner is big enough to fight his own corner. The point is that in that particular post there was no pro RST snobbery from der Berliner. I dont think that it needs to be Berliner to retort your suggestion, that is what debating on a forum is about is it not ? Freedom of speech to debate so long as respectful ? As you know, I have went from being a strong supporter of the RST to believing that it is ineffective at best. But that is a topic for a different thread. I felt you were being OTT in your "uber RST' rhetoric towards Berliner, and I see no problem in me pointing that out to you - just as I would expect you to do likewise when I am doing the same (although when I do it you know I will be right.... right ? ) Regarding the list of company events thing, if you can't be bothered, that's ok. No big deal. No, I CAN be bothered. I just dont have time to list those such events my man. If you have the time, or even the inclination, I would happily respond. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 We do not know if Whyte is a panacea, but we also do not know for certain that he is not. As has been the problem we faced throughout the takeover saga, we just don't know! We only here parts of the story to suit the agendas of various parties. But whilst the lack of information concerns me, it also comforts me (although only to a small degree), because I do not wish for the club to play out all of its business in public. Much of this is forced upon us with the various leaks and court cases, but the fact that no-one knows for sure Whyte's game plan, is not necessarily a negative in my eyes, perhaps its more a false positive - time will tell. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 The point is that in that particular post there was no pro RST snobbery from der Berliner. Mate, I'd rather not debate it with you when it means talking about someone in the third person. I dont think that it needs to be Berliner to retort your suggestion, that is what debating on a forum is about is it not ? Freedom of speech to debate so long as respectful ? Of course, but I'm not comfortable talking about fellow forum members in the third person like this. As you know, I have went from being a strong supporter of the RST to believing that it is ineffective at best. But that is a topic for a different thread. Yep and I'm sure you know I'm neither pro nor anti RST. I felt you were being OTT in your "uber RST' rhetoric towards Berliner, and I see no problem in me pointing that out to you I might have actually changed/edited my original post because I knew I was a touch OTT after I'd written it. Too late now though! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 No, I CAN be bothered. I just dont have time to list those such events my man. If you have the time, or even the inclination, I would happily respond. There's no real need to list the timeline of events as such anyway (at least not here and now) because they can be considered without an actual list. If you think of everything that's happened including the asset mortgaging and freezing of millions of pounds of RFC money in the context of the looming tax case, then it's there in plain sight for all to see that the club is being prepared for an administration event. Such an event will be a hell of a lot smoother for Craig Whyte if he doesn't have a board of directors to deal with. Five months ago there was a board of directors, now there isn't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 There's no real need to list the timeline of events as such anyway (at least not here and now) because they can be considered without an actual list. If you think of everything that's happened including the asset mortgaging and freezing of millions of pounds of RFC money in the context of the looming tax case, then it's there in plain sight for all to see that the club is being prepared for an administration event. Such an event will be a hell of a lot smoother for Craig Whyte if he doesn't have a board of directors to deal with. Five months ago there was a board of directors, now there isn't. The freezing of funds doesnt point to an administration event. The fact they are frozen ring fences those funds to ensure the creditors get first bite. It actually means that those funds are available to pay out in the event that the club lose the cases against them. To me, at least, that doesnt point to an administration event. Asset mortgaging. Could mean absolutely anything. Yes, it could point towards an administration event but you can be assured that there are MANY companies who have mortgaged their assets and are in no danger of being put into administration. Re the Board of Directors. Let me get this right... was it not in fact suggested that the Board members (or at least some of them) from the previous regime were actually holding off their own bid in order to have the club put into administration so that they could buy it back at a cheaper rate ? If WE have heard these rumours then there is nothing to suggest Craig Whyte didnt.... so he would probably know that the Board quite possibly would be pr-administration. They are as many justifiable reasons that these things dont point to administration as there are reasons that suggest the club is. And one thing, out of all of this, that hasnt really been debated to any great extent, is whether administration is actually a BAD thing. It may actually not be. And if that is the case.... is Craig Whyte a saviour again ? Or is he the devil incarnate for putting a black mark against our storied history by putting us into administration ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 How so? You know any inside stuff? Any clue what either of them actually wanted from the club ere being sacked, or rather being suspended? Whyte spent long enough doing due diligence and that includes going over the main employees contracts so he knew what their contracts were. Whyte did not follow either due process or employment law when he sacked them, telling the world through the media that there "was no way back" was either ignorant or naive. I have no problem with him replacing either of them and they would have been expecting to move on. The normal course to follow would have been a mutual consent and a pay off but Whyte opted to wash the dirty linen in public and throw good money after bad. Okay, any clue how this could have been avoided? Bar paying the money when it was due years ago in the first place, that is. When Bain and McInytre might have actually come across the money long ago by doing their job properly? (e) The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax; Now what part of the above statement from the Circular to Shareholders do you have trouble comprehending. The tax bill for the DOS only became due this year after HMRC won a court case related to a similar scheme, that's why there never was a contingency for any previous years accounts, there were a lot more companies than RFC hit with tax bills for DOS's. Granted. Fair enough. How so? Whyte has his own folk and uses it. I for one have not noted "constant" changes, btw. Changed from Warners to Anderson Strathern in the middle of the Bain case, I understand they changed QC's too but stand to be corrected. Expand please. Here's the circular read it for yourself http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/4d/76/0,,5~161357,00.pdf We'll soon find out how much of the £5m "additional working capital" and £5m for "investment in the playing squad" actually materialised. Oh and what happened to the money that was going to be "front ended"? Rubbish. HMRC wants more than what is due and we contest this. We have agreed to pay and AFAIK will do so, but not the penalty on top of that. And, BTW, do you or anyone else on here actually know whether these 2.8m have actually been paid by now? (e) The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax; If it had been paid then HMRC would not have been granted an Arrestment would they? The correct procedure would have been to do as they promised and paid the bill they could still have appealed any penalties but they have reneged on their promise to HMRC just as they reneged on their promise to Levy and Macrae. Paying over the odds for players not worth it and to clubs wanting to squeeze as much money out of our club? No failure. We even bid too much for Juhasz and HIS club decided to stay put. We bid enough for Verhoek ere HE decided to stay put. That's Whyte's failure? Not in my world. We offered Hearts £300k initially for Lee Wallace and ended up paying £1.5 million I know he's a half decent player but £1.5m for an SPL player with less than 12 months left on his contract, 5 times the initial offer? The David Goodwillie farce period. The farce of having a centre half travelling via planes, trains and auto-mobiles to make his début in one of our most important games of the season with a group of players he's never met let alone played with. Based on hearsay and information by people who have been wronged by the club or are commited enemies of it? Yes, if you believe them, then that's a failure. Well we'll soon find out for sure won't we ? Yes, people want to see all bad things that there might be in Whyte's take over, after being carefully nose-lead long before it happened by the media and those same people who now come after him with money claims and whatnot. I see bad in Whyte's takeover because no matter how hard and how often I look I can see no good in it for Rangers only for Whyte. Whyte will make Murray seem like a Paragon of Virtue and I'm not claiming the gift of second sight in saying that. So far the media have given Whyte an unbelievable easy ride, during the takeover all they did was unquestionably push Hay & Mckerron's spin. Whyte's had more stories spiked in 6 months than Murray had in 20 years. Suddenly because there is a programme going to be aired that shows Whyte in a non to flattering light the BBC are banned only the gullible will believe that he's standing up for the club and not himself. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I have many questions about Whyte, and I am sure he is looking after number one. But we should never forget. Who got us into this mess? Who said they would only sell to someone who could take Rangers forward? Who else was in the running to buy the Club? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I have many questions about Whyte, and I am sure he is looking after number one. But we should never forget. Who got us into this mess? Who said they would only sell to someone who could take Rangers forward? Who else was in the running to buy the Club? I am sure the supporters would have bought it for a pound. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I am sure the supporters would have bought it for a pound. With the tax case coming up? 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.