der Berliner 3,302 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Paul Murray (and the others involved in that last minute bid) wanted to buy the club, but leave the tax liability with SDM. Yes ... and I was massively annoyed by them being around for years doing nothing, letting the club linger towards the abyss and suddenly, when "their club" was about to be sold, they whipped up plan by themselves. If they were or are concerned about the club, who this side of the Saturn rings stops them from becoming involved again? Well ... Whyte might be, after they came out with various undignified statements during the takeover ... instead of joining forces to save the club. IMHO, the way he and other come out now is not the Rangers way either, so if I were Whyte, I wouldn't let them in now. But maybe I am one of the old school of thinking that there is a certain aura about our club, an aura that sets us apart from the rest out there. Most managers and indeed players we had adhere to that "being different" feeling. That these money men and directors now twist the knives make their former status even more disappointing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,357 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Yes, but Murray should also harbour some of those emotions too given he was part of the previous regime that a) got us into the financial mess we find ourselves and b) was also there when the potential tax liability arose. The previous regime are hardly innocent in all of this. The payments to the Employment Trust had gone on for many years before Paul Murray joined the board so I fail to see why he should take any responsibility for that. As for him being part of the previous regime, perhaps he opposed every bad decision that the board made but was overruled? Saying that, his comments are not helpful to the club and are primarily for his own ego and he should learn to be quiet. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 The payments to the Employment Trust had gone on for many years before Paul Murray joined the board so I fail to see why he should take any responsibility for that. As for him being part of the previous regime, perhaps he opposed every bad decision that the board made but was overruled? Saying that, his comments are not helpful to the club and are primarily for his own ego and he should learn to be quiet. I would hope he would have told us that then mate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,462 Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 The payments to the Employment Trust had gone on for many years before Paul Murray joined the board so I fail to see why he should take any responsibility for that. As for him being part of the previous regime, perhaps he opposed every bad decision that the board made but was overruled? Saying that, his comments are not helpful to the club and are primarily for his own ego and he should learn to be quiet. Correct,why go blabbing to the mHedia,it harms the club 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 The payments to the Employment Trust had gone on for many years before Paul Murray joined the board so I fail to see why he should take any responsibility for that. As for him being part of the previous regime, perhaps he opposed every bad decision that the board made but was overruled? Saying that, his comments are not helpful to the club and are primarily for his own ego and he should learn to be quiet. I'd perhaps agree with you had he been so proactive whilst he was collecting his salary. Like the previous regime, he is being obstructive towards the club, like the previous regime he was quiet when shit was hitting the fan. if I was part of an organisation with constant, loyal customers and the bank stepped in because they had no confidence in the board, I would keep my mouth shut. All very timmy-like. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Ex-Directors like Paul Murray are easy for stories. Any Journalist worth their salt, would be questioning D.Murray and D.Muir. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I'm right, I'm right. Told you so, told you so. Feck off ya stupid wee chunt, we've got enough problems without you whinning on the sidelines. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 As I inquired somewhere else ... could it just be that these apparent unaudited "advance results" were just being made ahead of the upcoming (?) AGM and are actually being tuned in a fashion to thwart HMRC's case, should they win it? Like ... keeping the damage to Rangers and Whyte at a minimum? NO, as BD said some fine tuning perhaps, nothing more. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 The payments to the Employment Trust had gone on for many years before Paul Murray joined the board so I fail to see why he should take any responsibility for that. Fair enough BD, I didnt know when he came in. As for him being part of the previous regime, perhaps he opposed every bad decision that the board made but was overruled? Then he should have resigned. If he disagreed with all the poor decision-making then he DID have an option. He never took it and that makes him culpable, in my opinion. Saying that, his comments are not helpful to the club and are primarily for his own ego and he should learn to be quiet. Most definitely. He says he takes no pleasure from it. But he is at pains to defend the previous regime with the GOOD that they did but with absolutely NO acceptance of responsibility of the poor decisions and financial mismanagement. I find it incredulous that he is surprised that the club are talking about administration in the event that the club loses the tax case. I think that the board, current OR past, would be very remiss in their duties to not consider ALL the possible outcomes of that case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I can't see how anyone can really give CW the pelters for his investment in the club until we see his actions after the tax case has been resolved. It seems obvious to me that his hands are tied until he knows our true financial situation. You don't start spending tons on your house when you have a potential massive bill to dispute. You hold fire. Slagging him off now just sounds like Murray is clueless about our current situation - and the guy was recently on the board! What a total dilbus. His allusion to his late "bid" for the club is also laughable - he had about three years to put together something feasible and instead spend 5 minutes planning a so-call "bid" on the back of a 10p mixture poke. Amateurish at best. Whyte may be as bad as people claim but he's the ONLY one who put up a quarter of a million quid to perform due diligence and set out a plausible business plan. I say again, Whyte may be a load crap but we're light years away from knowing that for sure. The tax case is the sword of Damocles hanging over his head - and he wasn't even the one responsible for it being there. If we win the case, Whyte will have to start putting his money where his mouth was... 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.