craig 5,195 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Is anyone else like me NOT worried in the slightest about CW background? I aint, as far as i’m concerned it’s all sort of part and parcel of the murky world of business. I work for the biggest oil company in the World and we are up to our eyeballs in legal issues which range from insider trading to fucking over small businesses. it’s what businesses do. I’d have been more shocked if CW had not shafted people and been involved in dodgy dealings. Exxon Mobil ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Mr MacMillan described as "disturbing" the contribution from Robert Burns This has already been debunked. Mr McMillan should have been questioning the spurious contributions of Robert Burns as much as he is questioning Rangers new owner. Also, the claims of Burns did not lead to a criminal charge laid against Craig Whyte... why was that ? Lack of appropriate evidence ? If, as Burns suggests, they had informationa and indeed "evidence" then surely the Insolvency Service should be reprimanded for not doing their job. They have evidence yet dont press criminal charges. I would have thought that was part of their job, to bring white collar criminals to justice. Could it be that this "evidence" was not evidence at all but hearsay ? Further, I may be missing something but why should Craig Whyte make a statement to the fans on an event which a) was 7 years prior to his involvement with the club b) there were never any charges pressed c) has no relevance to RFC and d) has already been extinguished (in the event of the Directosrhip ban) ? It is a shame that an official supporters representative took the time to provide an interview expressing his "disturbance" at the ALLEGATIONS against Craig Whyte yet took ZERO time to confront the quite blatant misinformation from the BBC as well as Mr Burns. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 CW had cut all contact before Sykes got done, of course the programme led you to believe he was connected. Daley pushed the "guilty by association" bit several times. He tried a bit too hard to be impartial for my liking. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigy1881 79 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 What confuses me is that the TV show spent the 30 mins highlighting Whyte's downfalls in the past and how Rangers are doomed. Eh HELLO, David Murray walking in a white knight and hero only to lead the club into the gutter. What people have done in the past is in the past it is all about how he deals with this wonderful club going forward. So far I have no issues with how he is going about his business. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Daley pushed the "guilty by association" bit several times. He tried a bit too hard to be impartial for my liking. The way he talked raising and lowering the tone of his voice the dramatic pausing, was like watching a kids tv programme. Or was it aimed at those people who don't go to normal schools, we all know how they like to be lead by the nose. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I find it worrying that the head of a fan assembly would take these allegations at face value and just condemn Whyte. I find it worrying that so many people agree with your post given MacMillan didn't take these allegations at face value nor did he condemn Whyte. He's already made a statement, McMillian ya muppet he denies the charges what more do want its in the hands of the lawyers. As if it's not hard enough fighting everybody out with Rangers we have people who should know better giving the media all the soundbites they want. The truth is the BBC have made allegations and far too many instantly assume they're false. I'm not saying they're true, I'm just saying they're worrying - just like if someone who disliked me told me my chick was cheating on me and gave me some emails - it would concern me and I wouldn't immediately disbelieve them - I'd try to get both sides - evidence on both sides. I'm not taking either side here - too many people are. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisabeer 409 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 A spokesman for BBC Scotland said the corporation stood by the investigation "which was produced according to our rigorous editorial standards on fairness, accuracy and impartiality". thatl be the same standards that they used then when they stitched up Ally McCoist. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Danny as head of the assembly he should have said no comment end of story. And if you had written proof somebody was pumping your GF I would say that's hard evidence. Can you show me any hard evidence from last nights fiasco. And if that guy Burns still works for the insolvency investigation team no wonder there's so much White collar crime. Edited October 21, 2011 by GovanAllan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I find it worrying that so many people agree with your post given MacMillan didn't take these allegations at face value nor did he condemn Whyte. He didnt take them at face value ? Can you point out where he didnt ? Because from the quotes attributed it seems he did. The truth is the BBC have made allegations and far too many instantly assume they're false. I'm not saying they're true, I'm just saying they're worrying - just like if someone who disliked me told me my chick was cheating on me and gave me some emails - it would concern me and I wouldn't immediately disbelieve them - I'd try to get both sides - evidence on both sides. I'm not taking either side here - too many people are. Ahhh, but herein lies part of the problem. Whilst you are talking in the present tense about your girlfriend/wife/significant other cheating on you the allegations being made about Craig Whyte are allegations which relate to his past. They had nothing to do with RFC. If you and your girlfriend split up, and you then found out a couple of years later that she had been cheatin on you whilst together... would you be concerned ? Or would you be thinking "just as well we broke up then". Because at this point it doesnt, or shouldnt, impact you. Some of the allegations being made have already been debunked. Take a look for yourself in other threads about the quotes from Robert Burns. The guy isnt even accurate in some of his assertions in his own area of expertise. That makes him less than credible in my opinion. Some people are taking side with Whyte, others are siding with BBC. That is their prerogative. Personally I try to look at both and play devils advocate - and some of Whyte's previous business dealings have seemed to have been less than noble - but there are many, many businessmen in that same position - for instance, I would be surprised if Dermot Desmond hasnt been in shady business deals in the past (not saying he has but I would be surprised). Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, all these guys have been guilty of anti-trust and anti-monopolistic business dealings. They work around the edges of the law, which is part of what makes them so successful. The insinuation about working with a "convicted fraudster" - when in fact the conviction came after all of Whyte's dealings with the guy had ended. There is plenty in the piece which suggests it was a hatchet job, you just need to look for it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,409 Posted October 21, 2011 Author Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Why are some fans worried about his past?,I couldn't give a flying fuck what he did in the past,he wasn't the owner of Rangers FC in the past,I'm more interested in the here and now and where he will take us in the future.He will continue to get my full support until he does something wrong,but as far as I can see he is trying to get the Rangers back on a sound financial footing,one which the old regime put us in.I was more worried before he took over. Edited October 21, 2011 by ian1964 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.