Statement on Whyte by the club

[Bluedell 5,348]

The fact remains that we had bids for Cuellar, Juhasz, Goodwillie and Verhoek running essentially at the same time. Do you expect that had they all/partially come off, Whyte would have said: "Look folks, these bids were something we did to bluff the Rangers support and Scottish public into believing that I have the money to spare, but I actually haven't, so keep your players, please!"

 

A reasonable argument, but if some or all had come off, where is the cash to pay for them?

 

Smith admitted that they changed the Goodwillie deal, making it worse for Dundee Utd. Who's to say that a similar tactic wasn't used in the other bids?

 

It was Whyte's people that came out and said that we would be spending £5m a year and some of the £25m may be front loaded and gave hints at £15m. You can't blame people for being sceptical when the net spend turns out to be closer to £1.3m (or whatever it was).

 

 

As for trying to hide, well, it is easy to say somesuch now. Might have been a genuine error and those who actually did the dealings are just being castigated. The will to see something even remotely vile in Whyte is quite tangible. Which is not to say that one shall join Whyte's cohorts blindly either, BTW.

 

If you're buying a quoted company, you and your advisers generally don't make errors like that. It's similar to the inaccuracy contained in yesterday's statement. Perhaps it's just another "error" but in my fairly limited experience, the words of public statements are poured over until everyone is happy with them. I find it hard to believe that genuine errors are contained within them, particularly when they are there to correct a previous omission.

[der Berliner 3,263]

Regarding the transfers ... methinks it was recently said (by Whyte, I admit) that due to resigning the key players too, more than 5m were actually spent - the new signings and loanies do cost money too in wages et al.

 

Regarding the buying issue: would the sellers (Murray, Lloyds) and their lot not ask/check for any such things too, I mean, it seemed that Murray did look carefully into any bid presented to him (dismissing Ellis a year earlier)?

 

Apart from the BBC chaps presenting a smug smile and being apparently unafraid of Whyte threats, are there any consequences the stockmarket w-/could impose ... or is it the proverbial storm in the water?

[GovanAllan 0]

They can impose a fine and suspend the shares I think but that's in extreme cases.

[Ergatrude 0]

I do not trust Craig Whyte one bit. I cannot see any evidence that this takeover is benefiting the club. He seems to have a murky past which is slowly coming to the fore and could in the long term be quite damaging to the club.

 

Even the fact we're not owned by Lloyds is beginning to wear thin, because I didn't see a lot of damage being done to us while our debt was with them. Yeah. we had no money and were in debt to a bank, but it wasn't a bank who were intending to see us go under. We're still effectively in the same position of having almost no money and an owner whose past is coming back to haunt him.

 

We've spent less under Whyte than we did in SDM/Lloyds final season!

 

I dunno if I'm reading this correct.

 

When we were owned by Lloyds they pulled the strings, we didn't sign a player for 3 years, Ibrox wasn't being maintained to the standard it is now, our players were leaving because the contracts they were being offered were rubbish.

 

Now we have our best players tied down (I'm not hiding from the fact that this may be purely to increase their pricetag), we have new screens, Ibrox has been cleaned up (by this I mean I have noticed a difference at Ibrox just in general cleanliness of toilets and stands), our short-term future is at least safe, we have paid back 1 tax bill.

 

The only bad things I would say is; the constant media attention, well at least the fact it seems to be negative all the time.

Also Whyte's transfer strategy was rubbish. It's ok to offer a low price for a player, might aswell chance your luck. But to go public can only ever lead the players club demanding more money.

 

Apart from what we owe Whyte (£14m according to the balance sheet?) we have no outstanding debt. Since he has already said several times that this will be wiped if we win our outstanding tax case with HMRC, I am not worried.

 

We only made a profit of 76k? but taking into consideration the tax bill we payed plus an increased player wage budget & only a brief European run I would say that is pretty good going. Far better than being £30m int he red to a bank during a recession.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Ergatrude
Typos, lots of typos.

[Zappa 0]

We only made a profit of 76k? but taking into consideration the tax bill we played plus an increased player wage budget & only a brief European run I would say that is pretty good going. Far better than being £30m int he red to a bank during a recession.

 

Our brief European run this season won't show up till next year's accounts. The figures in the accounts just released are only for year ended 30 June 2011 and include last year's superb European run where we reportedly brought in over 15 million in revenue. Without that huge European pot of gold this season, next years accounts are something the money men won't be looking forward to. I'd imagine the only way to avoid a huge increase in debt will be to sell 2 or 3 valuable players. I'm no expert and certainly not trying to scaremonger, but that's how it looks to me and I'll be extremely surprised if at least two major players aren't sold in January. With the tax case set to be looming during the transfer window as well, it may well be one of the most worrying January transfer windows we've had in a long long time.

[Ergatrude 0]

I really think I'm missing something, and that's not sarcasm.

 

I just can't see where all the ideas that we need to sell are coming from.

I wouldn't be surprised if we sold players, but I would be surprised if it wasn't just the deadwood.

[GovanAllan 0]

SFA getting involved now seeking clarification from Rangers about Whyte's ban.

 

Dear oh dear wonder who's pulling the strings over at Hampden on this one.

[Danny 0]

I thought I'd answered that?

 

You did. I was replying to Allan.

[Danny 0]

SFA getting involved now seeking clarification from Rangers about Whyte's ban.

 

Dear oh dear wonder who's pulling the strings over at Hampden on this one.

 

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

[Zappa 0]

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

 

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.