Guest Dutchy Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yeah, I've always had some doubts and they're now turning into 'solid' fears that this deal will not do us any good at all. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not encouraged with our only fund raising plan is to 'raid' the Indian market. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yeah, I've always had some doubts and they're now turning into 'solid' fears that this deal will not do us any good at all. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not encouraged with our only fund raising plan is to 'raid' the Indian market. Said before the hospitality suites are jammed with so called great Rangers men who stand in there and moan about this and that, but not once have they ever put their hand in their pocket to seriously invest in Rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 Just out of interest: To whom has this information to be revealed and who says that it wasn't? That it was not known to the press and world-wide public is one thing, being told to those with real interest another. I believe that the information required to be disclosed to the shareholders and the stock exchange when the club was bought over. The fact that they have seen fit to publish the information now confirms that it is something that should have been disclosed. And, BTW, on a sidenote ... so what? Will someone be utterly dismayed by this and sue/fine him for *you name it*? Unless I am mistaken, he is pursuing the BBC not for revealing this but, but them claiming he was doing something criminal back then? Apart from the fact that they had Rangers written all over that programme, when it was essentially all about Whyte ten years ago ... I am not bothered that he was disqualified, but it's a bit more concerning that he tried to hide the fact from us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 No Whyte would mean no Davis, Naismith, McGregor and Jelavic at least. I know which I would rather have. The suggestion that all these players would have left was brought by the same people that said we would have £15m (or even £5m) to spend on players. It's unclear what would have actually happened. I do agree that Whyte seems the better option at this point, but it'll be interesting to reassess this come 31st Jan. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 If your embarrassed about something from your past most people would keep it quite I would think, but he should've know with the high profile job he was about to start doing that it would all eventually come out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 The suggestion that all these players would have left was brought by the same people that said we would have £15m (or even £5m) to spend on players. It's unclear what would have actually happened. I do agree that Whyte seems the better option at this point, but it'll be interesting to reassess this come 31st Jan. No CL would've meant a fire sale BD I have no doubt about that. The bank would've had no other choice. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Take it you don't like him then Danny. I'm sure he's a very nice man, I just don't trust him as Rangers owner. No Whyte would mean no Davis, Naismith, McGregor and Jelavic at least. I know which I would rather have. That's complete speculation and you know it. We were 'owned' for how long by Lloyds? 3 or 4 years? They all remained with us during that time - no bids were ever really received for any of them. So what grounds do you base them suddenly departing when they hadn't previously done so? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 No CL would've meant a fire sale BD I have no doubt about that. The bank would've had no other choice. So why wasn't there a fire sale after Kaunas? Only one player left - Cuellar - and that was because of that clause in his contract. Didn't Lloyds own us at that point as well? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yeah, I've always had some doubts and they're now turning into 'solid' fears that this deal will not do us any good at all. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not encouraged with our only fund raising plan is to 'raid' the Indian market. There were early signs of good things - the initial changes in the boardroom were positive and I liked the fact we were no longer in debt to the bank. But last summer's transfer window was simply appalling - we spent about 3M at the most (remember we sold Bougherra for £1.7M) and the squad we ended up with was nowhere near good enough to compete in Europe. Then add Greig and McLelland resigning and it left a bit of a sour taste as well. Things were going swimmingly in the league...and I feel a blog coming on... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 So why wasn't there a fire sale after Kaunas? Only one player left - Cuellar - and that was because of that clause in his contract. Didn't Lloyds own us at that point as well? Cuellar left to finance the purchases of Mendes, Davis and Edu. 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.