Craig Whyte speaks to the Sun and sets record straight

[Frankie 8,151]

dB:

 

Again much of what you write is fair and I agree people need to try and be objective and sensible about the whole issue.

 

However, just because people are asking questions and offering criticism doesn't mean they'll need to eat humble pie if he comes good. The fact is, Whyte has misled us on a few key issues - such as the Ticketus arrangement and his disqualification as a director. Fair enough, both issues can be explained and I'm happy to continue to give Whyte the benefit of the doubt.

 

In saying that, he'd have known before we took over that some kind of overdraft facility would have to be put in place so why not be open about it from the start. For example, how long is the agreement for; are the terms better than previous similar facilities; what happens if we default; what if Ticketus decide to pull out?

 

There are a long list of questions and while I appreciate the fact an AGM/EGM may not achieve answers (and I also understand why Whyte may prefer privacy on some issues - personal or business); I think an open meeting would be beneficial for his reputation amongst the support.

 

At the end of the day though there is no alternative so we can moan, complain or back him all we like but nothing will change. I just hope he's not taking advantage of that situation. And it can only be hope as I have literally nothing to cling to in terms of evidence of his successful previous examples of turning around big business.

 

Finally, again, just to be completely clear; there is a big difference between offering constructive criticism and suggesting Whyte is some sort of con-man. I think, generally speaking, most people on this forum anyway are definitely calm enough but just want some comfort moving forward. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[der Berliner 3,251]

On a sidenote, from a fan's perspective, one of the more important lines in the article with regard to the team is that he wants to tie in Aluko on a longer deal soon.

[Bluedell 5,345]

In saying that, he'd have known before we took over that some kind of overdraft facility would have to be put in place so why not be open about it from the start. For example, how long is the agreement for; are the terms better than previous similar facilities; what happens if we default; what if Ticketus decide to pull out?

 

It was Whyte himself who kept empahsising that we were debt free as a club. How can that be the case if we had already borrowed cash from Ticketus? More misleading statements.

[GovanAllan 0]

It was Whyte himself who kept empahsising that we were debt free as a club. How can that be the case if we had already borrowed cash from Ticketus? More misleading statements.

 

He was asked if LBG had been paid and he said yes, the mans been a politician in a past life. You can also argue a debt isnt a debt until you can't pay it so what is a debt. Would be easier asking what is the meaning if life. :smile:

[Bluedell 5,345]

He was asked if LBG had been paid and he said yes, the mans been a politician in a past life. You can also argue a debt isnt a debt until you can't pay it so what is a debt. Would be easier asking what is the meaning if life. :smile:

 

The definition of debt in respect of businesses is well established (see note 25 of the last set of the club's accounts). He didn't even go down the route that celtic use of talking about "bank debt".

[GovanAllan 0]

The definition of debt in respect of businesses is well established (see note 25 of the last set of the club's accounts). He didn't even go down the route that celtic use of talking about "bank debt".

 

Christ if he started using there tactics for deluding the mhanky hordes on us the place would implode.

[calscot 0]

"Yes, Rangers had used this company for two years before I was ever involved. I spoke to Ticketus because I knew it was a liability coming up after the takeover.

 

"A ballpark figure for that would be £7m so I spoke to them and we decided we would roll over the facility.

 

Does this mean that he has only borrowed £7M from Ticketus and that this will rollover for three years or has he borrowed say £21M up front to pay back over three years?

 

For someone trashing the allegations he was pretty vague and lacked any clarity.

 

I can't see how we CAN borrow three years in advance as we need our yearly income EVERY year. If we spend the money now and give it back over the next three years, how do we pay our bills? What are we spending the money on?

 

So it makes far more sense (when you're a mushroom) that the deal is for three years but it's a rolling deal where you get the ST money up front each year. I can't see us being a going concern otherwise.

 

However, for long term security and cutting interest costs, it would seem prudent to gradually adjust our spending until we are spending the money AFTER we've received it. The equivalent of settling your bills after you've been paid instead of using your credit card and then paying it off when your salary goes in.

 

At best we seem to be living one year ahead of our income, at the scary worst it could be three. The former means we have something like a £7M hole to fill to get back on an even keel, the latter means more like £21M-£24.4M.

 

The annoying bit is that Whyte was supposed to provide working capital and seems to be passing that responsibility to the club.

 

I'm still giving Whyte the benefit of the doubt until the repercussions of the tax case are clear as I think a lot of things will be cleared up then and in fact a lot of the criticism seems to really strangely ignore the tax case.

 

Some of it comes across as almost moronic -

Whyte - "We can't sign off the accounts and have an AGM until the result of the tax case - it should be done by the end of March."

Critic - "We still haven't had an AGM or the accounts signed off - why?"

 

It's not that long to wait till the end of March so why can't we hold off the hysteria until then? In fact I think we should wait till the end of the season before making rash judgements and decisions. There is not much we can do in the meantime and it could be that damage is done to the club and then it turns out that Whyte is not so bad.

[der Berliner 3,251]

It was Whyte himself who kept empahsising that we were debt free as a club. How can that be the case if we had already borrowed cash from Ticketus? More misleading statements.

 

IMHO ... the debt with Lloyds was/is something different than something that is definately going to be paid back, e.g., a loan. There was essentially nothing certain (like a certain number of ticket sales that will come in, no matter what) to pay off the standing debt withs Lloyds, bar CL income and player sales.

 

Would you expect him to speak "business talk" each time he goes into any lose detail about the way certain aspects of finance is being handled in the press? I do expect these hard business figures to stand in the annual reports et al, not in each and every daily newspaper he speaks to.

[pete 2,499]

Does this mean that he has only borrowed £7M from Ticketus and that this will rollover for three years or has he borrowed say £21M up front to pay back over three years?

 

For someone trashing the allegations he was pretty vague and lacked any clarity.

 

I can't see how we CAN borrow three years in advance as we need our yearly income EVERY year. If we spend the money now and give it back over the next three years, how do we pay our bills? What are we spending the money on?

 

So it makes far more sense (when you're a mushroom) that the deal is for three years but it's a rolling deal where you get the ST money up front each year. I can't see us being a going concern otherwise.

 

However, for long term security and cutting interest costs, it would seem prudent to gradually adjust our spending until we are spending the money AFTER we've received it. The equivalent of settling your bills after you've been paid instead of using your credit card and then paying it off when your salary goes in.

 

At best we seem to be living one year ahead of our income, at the scary worst it could be three. The former means we have something like a £7M hole to fill to get back on an even keel, the latter means more like £21M-£24.4M.

 

The annoying bit is that Whyte was supposed to provide working capital and seems to be passing that responsibility to the club.

 

I'm still giving Whyte the benefit of the doubt until the repercussions of the tax case are clear as I think a lot of things will be cleared up then and in fact a lot of the criticism seems to really strangely ignore the tax case.

 

Some of it comes across as almost moronic -

Whyte - "We can't sign off the accounts and have an AGM until the result of the tax case - it should be done by the end of March."

Critic - "We still haven't had an AGM or the accounts signed off - why?"

 

It's not that long to wait till the end of March so why can't we hold off the hysteria until then? In fact I think we should wait till the end of the season before making rash judgements and decisions. There is not much we can do in the meantime and it could be that damage is done to the club and then it turns out that Whyte is not so bad.

Has Whyte actually done anything he promised? All I see is words of denial without any proof.

[Juancornetto 1]

This could be a dastardly plot to borrow £24.4m of technically unsecured funds from an unsecured creditor before entering administration and then cutting deals with such creditors at vastly reduced terms (or hee haw!) but the fact that (as he claims) the Ticketus deal is underwritten by one of his companies might suggest that's not the case. Either way he has borrowed a lot of money and in this day and age that is a very difficult thing to do. From a business point of view it is a very smart move...he is financing his ownership of Rangers by using someone else's money. That in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing for us but should HMRC rile against us Administration is all but a certainty.