Statement on Whyte by the club

[GovanAllan 0]

With all due respect, if he has broken rules should it just be left alone?

 

Jeez Danny you got a wee voodoo doll of Whyte at home that you stick pins in or would you rather we just burn him at the stake.

 

If you weren't so blinded by your dislike of the man, you would have to ask why the SFA didn't ask for clarification weeks ago when this first became public knowledge.

 

And as far as I know he hasn't broken any SFA rules.

[Zappa 0]

And as far as I know he hasn't broke any SFA rules.

 

I think he might have actually mate. There's something in an STV article about it that I read earlier. Still don't see how or why the SFA would take any action. Regan's shellick-minded gimp buddies are probably behind the call for "clarification".

[GovanAllan 0]

I think he might have actually mate. There's something in an STV article about it that I read earlier. Still don't see how or why the SFA would take any action. Regan's shellick-minded gimp buddies are probably behind the call for "clarification".

 

Would that be the fit and proper to own a football club bit.

 

As you say Zappa this reeks of mischief making by the green and grey hordes at Hampden.

[Danny 0]

Lawwell's buddy Regan seeks "clarification" on the matter, but in all seriousness, what are they going to do? Craig Whyte took over Rangers on Regan and his team's watch, so it's ultimately their problem. It's not as if they're likely to do anything to Rangers.

 

I don't necessarily expect them to do anything as it were, nor do I personally care about what Whyte has admitted doing, so long as it doesn't affect the health of Rangers.

 

But the fact is that if what he's done warrants investigation from the powers that be, it doesn't seem unfair to me.

 

If it was the Celtic chairman with all these accusations being made against him, Scottish football would expect him to be investigated as well.

 

I expect little to come of it, but I'm not buying a conspiracy theory on the fact they're investigating.

[Zappa 0]

Would that be the fit and proper to own a football club bit.

 

From an article just released at 8:00pm tonight -

 

Whyte may fall foul of the SFA’s Articles of Association, specifically 10.2, which specifies instances in which a director may not be considered a fit and proper person to hold office.

 

In his case, it is section 10.2 (g) – where individuals would not be allowed to be appointed to a club’s board if “he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years” – which appears to have set alarm bells ringing.

[Jim White 0]

The SFA have requested more information from Rangers as to whether owner Craig Whyte was previously disqualified as a company director.

 

More...

[GovanAllan 0]

Is that from the start of his disqualification or from the end not very clear.

 

Anyway what are they going to do about it tell him to give us back to Murray till the end of the season.

 

Actually funny the SFA asking anyone if they are fit and proper.

 

Liewells very own cocksucker McLaughlin breaks the story surprise surprise.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Cuellar left to finance the purchases of Mendes, Davis and Edu.

 

Cuellar was going before the Kaunas game which is why he didn't play in that match. We may have used the sale proceeds to pay for those purchases but I don't think they were directly linked as you suggest.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

GovanAllan;287141]Is that from the start of his disqualification or from the end not very clear.

 

That's a very good question. I don't know the legal answer but I suspect that if it is the former it would say something like within 5 years from the date of first being disqualified...

the wording as it stands seems more likely to mean the latter because he was disqualified as a director i.e. he could not have been a director in 2007, so 2011 would be within 5 years of that.

 

If you think about it and he bought Rangers in 2004, then it can't be right that he would be a fit and proper person whilst still disqualified as a director.

 

If you compare that wording with a standard insurance wording where you have to delare if you have been disqualified from driving within the past 5 years and you were disqualified from 2000 to 2007 and you were trying to get insurance in 2011 and failed to disclose, then I am in no doubt that your insurance would be invalid.

 

If I am correct then it is unlikely that he could have been "fit and proper" when he bought Rangers.

 

So the question would be, what penalties would be available and against whom, the Club or him or both?

Edited December 1, 2011 by BrahimHemdani

[Danny 0]

Jeez Danny you got a wee voodoo doll of Whyte at home that you stick pins in or would you rather we just burn him at the stake.

 

If you weren't so blinded by your dislike of the man,

 

I feel like you're ignoring almost everything I'm saying and taking wee small bits out of context in order to disagree with them

 

I have nothing against Whyte, but he is the owner of the club I support and questions have been asked about his business integrity. I am not going to blindly have faith in him and ask no questions. Anyone who does might be in for some substantial disappointment.

 

you would have to ask why the SFA didn't ask for clarification weeks ago when this first became public knowledge.

 

And as far as I know he hasn't broken any SFA rules.

 

Erm, because the club only confirmed it today?! It was only strong speculation until it was announced by us. You can't investigate speculation Allan!