Frankie 8,183 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Statement from RFC "Craig Whyte strenuously refutes the unfounded and defamatory allegations made in this programme and has instructed lawyers to commence immediate legal proceedings against the BBC. "Any repetition of these false accusations will also be met with legal action." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I was disspointed to hear what AJ was saying in that documentary,he came across as being a bit hurt by CW taking over the Rangers and did himself no favours I certainly thought that both AJ & P Murray came across quite bitter....they clearly felt that Whyte wasn't the right buyer. I also found it amusing that they felt qualified to comment on Whyte's business acumen - considering that they were the ones who got the club into this mess in the 1st place. Added to that, AJ was initially brought in to find a buyer based on his vast business/sporting contacts....the best that materialised was the bloke sitting across the boardroom from him... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 It looks like the BBC have totally burned their bridges with the club this time. There can be no way back for many years. One of the downsides of this is that Radio Clyde are going to be beneficiaries. My thoughts exactly. It's pretty much all out war now. First story before Gaddafi indeed. Unbelievable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 My thoughts exactly. It's pretty much all out war now. First story before Gaddafi indeed. Unbelievable. Stv were the same on the late bulletin though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenzie1 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 CW will get ripped to shreds....he wont comment on whether he's a billionaire or not, same as Cliff Richards wont comment on his sexuality, and we all know the answer to that.:devil: No we don't. We all think we know the answer to that. A fine distinction, perhaps, but one that the courts would certainly draw. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenzie1 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Would it not be the case thou that the BBC would have to prove it's side of the story and not the other way around. Going by the evidence so far the BBC are skating on thin ice, nudge nudge wink wink we know he's a bad man, doesn't really stand up in court. What Cliff is gay omg am shocked. Lol Correct. In civil cases the burden of proof lies with the defender. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 There were some serious allegations made in this documentary, pertaining to documents supposedly confirming some very negative things about Whyte's past. I think he has a case to answer, and STV agree with that despite being the more 'positive' spin albeit the interview they had with him was absolute garbage. I still don't agree the BBC are biased, I think they're just awful nowadays. Well, BBC Scotland anyway. In terms of their sports coverage. Am I worried - the truth is we know very little about Whyte's background, and most of us have had to take him on faith rather than evidence that he was the right man. I remain extremely disappointed with the summer signings given only 2 of them have actually been genuine successes and a bit perplexed by Whyte's claim that we spent in excess of 5M on players. Which we clearly didn't, even without the sale of Bougherra. Furthermore, the RSA also believe Whyte has a case to answer and that the allegations are disturbing. I'm not hanging him out to dry yet, but clearly there's more than a hint of grey with him and I've not seen any real evidence that the takeover left us in a better state than previous. The only good thing is we're not owned by the bank. But is who we're owned by now a better prospect? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 To be honest, my understanding of it was the companies failed generally had something to do with that Sykes guy that got the jail. All his current companies which have nothing to do with Sykes are fine. Co-incidence? They added short clips of Rangers purely so they could use our clubs name in the title "OMG Craig Whyte is a bad man, but this show isn't about Craig Whyte (wink wink) so meanwhile at Rangers, everything was rosy". I couldn't believe that they were bringing up stuff about dodging the tax man 10 years ago & trying to get thick people to make a connection between his tax case & Rangers current tax case, as if it's CW's burden.. BBC - Big Bunch of Cunts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 To be honest, my understanding of it was the companies failed generally had something to do with that Sykes guy that got the jail. All his current companies which have nothing to do with Sykes are fine. Co-incidence? They added short clips of Rangers purely so they could use our clubs name in the title "OMG Craig Whyte is a bad man, but this show isn't about Craig Whyte (wink wink) so meanwhile at Rangers, everything was rosy". I couldn't believe that they were bringing up stuff about dodging the tax man 10 years ago & trying to get thick people to make a connection between his tax case & Rangers current tax case, as if it's CW's burden.. BBC - Big Bunch of Cunts. Actually they were pretty explicit in making the distinction between both tax cases. They said they couldn't understand why any businessman would want to take on someone else's tax burden. It doesn't happen apparently. They did not claim it was linked to anything he'd done in his career. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Actually they were pretty explicit in making the distinction between both tax cases. They said they couldn't understand why any businessman would want to take on someone else's tax burden. It doesn't happen apparently. They did not claim it was linked to anything he'd done in his career. No, they didn't claim it at all. But they mentioned both cases several times in the same breath. Which would make some people think that Craig Whyte is a regular tax dodger & therefore assume he had something to do with our tax case, which is exactly what I heard someone say at 9:30pm last night on the tills at Lidl before I had actually watched the programme. 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.