Rangers now in administration

[Juancornetto 1]

As much as we all want what's best for Rangers we must recognise that what will happen is what's best for Craig Whyte, no matter how hard that is to stomach.

 

Too many potential pitfalls to be remotely positive just now I'll leave that for Ergatrude, der Berliner and their ilk.

 

Is there any need to be so dismissive and flippant of other guys views? There is no reason why both scenarios can't be true.

[forlanssister 3,061]

EDIT: What did Traynor say?

 

Perhaps I should have said "strongly inferred" instead of "called" but the meaning remains the same.

 

 

Next time I see an Ibrox director I'll remember to ask him. But not Phil Betts. He's gone.

 

He left the Ibrox board last month but what exactly did he do? What was his function? And although Whyte insists he himself has never taken a penny out of Rangers in salary or expenses, can the others say the same? And if none of the directors received payment, might someone know if money left the "client account", set up by Whyte for the takeover, on September 8 last year? And if it did, to whom did it go? And for what? No point asking that other bloke, David Grier, who also appeared to be a member of the takeover crew. He knows nothing about Rangers' day-to-day running or the state of the club's finances. He said so, just the other day.

 

Yet in the lead-up to the buy-out he was introduced to Rangers' board as a financial advisor and they continue to insist Grier spoke on various matters, including the "big" tax case that could leave Rangers facing a £49m bill.

 

They also believe he accompanied Donald McIntyre, who was Rangers' finance director, to a meeting with the revenue about that very case. Surely not. After all, only last week Grier told Record Sport that he isn't a tax expert.

 

He also said he had no knowledge of the £24.4m Rangers raised by selling off tranches of future season tickets to Ticketus. But he'd made his lack of intelligence on that front clear some time ago.

 

On April 27 last year to be precise. That was when he sent an email stating that Rangers - he wrote "we", even though he also claims not to have been advising on the day-to-day operation - have yet to open any discussions with Ticketus.

 

Strange that because, as has already been reported, a letter from Whyte's company, Liberty Capital, and signed by the owner to Ticketus, dated March 8, confirms the intention to sell season tickets.

 

Then, on April 7, lawyers on behalf of Ticketus deposit £24.4m into the client account.

 

So that means that 20 days after the money was in place no one had bothered to tell Grier, who incidentally had actually been brought in by Liberty Capital. Again, he said so himself.

 

But he needn't feel bad if he has been kept out of the loop. He has the same level of importance as Rangers legions. Apparently they don't need to know either.

EDIT: What did Traynor say?

[Zappa 0]

EDIT: What did Traynor say?

 

Craig Whyte and chums at fault for Rangers' plight

By jim Traynor on Feb 13, 12 06:29 AM in rangers

 

AS Rangers lurch ever closer to the abyss, their owner, Craig Whyte, continues to protest his innocence. Debts pile up and all he can say is "it wasnae me".

 

But blaming the previous board for today's mess is lame. It's also a distortion of the truth.

 

Just listen to yourself, Craig. For the sake of the club and the fans stop pointing the finger at others and tell it like it really is.

 

Get it out there in the open. You'll feel better. You might hold on to the fans and perhaps even preserve what's left of Rangers' dignity.

 

A barrage of negative headlines, constant legal wrangles and a staggering level of naivety in the transfer market have dragged Rangers through the mud. This club's credibility has never been so low.

 

Of course the old board were less than perfect but Whyte himself declared the club debt free the day he paid off Lloyds Bank with £18million.

 

Yet nine months on Rangers fans fear closure.

 

So who is really responsible? You cannot blame people who weren't even there.

 

If Rangers do go under before the final decision on the EBT tax case is announced, that will be mainly down to Whyte and, of course, those who advised and helped him structure his buy-out and strategy for taking the club on.

 

Remember them? You must have seen those city slickers who marched triumphantly down Edmiston Drive and in through the Ibrox front door last May.

 

It was just after the takeover had been signed off and policemen on horseback parted the crowd so they could flounce down the road. They were so pleased with themselves.

 

But now that the business plan seems flawed and the cash flow appears to be drying up as quickly as the debts pile up, they are nowhere to be seen.

 

Whyte is still there, of course, and Gary Withey remains on the Ibrox board, although largely anonymous and maybe even speechless. Never a cheep from him, which is a pity because it might be interesting to talk with him about this curious Rangers involvement with Banstead Athletic, an amateur team in Surrey.

 

We're told this is a heartwarming story about Rangers reaching out into another community. Bollocks. Rangers fans should be asking if this bizarre link has cost anything other than time.

 

Then again, in the business world time usually means money and, who knows, there could be hundreds, if not thousands, of reasons for them to question this tie-up.

 

Next time I see an Ibrox director I'll remember to ask him. But not Phil Betts. He's gone.

 

He left the Ibrox board last month but what exactly did he do? What was his function? And although Whyte insists he himself has never taken a penny out of Rangers in salary or expenses, can the others say the same? And if none of the directors received payment, might someone know if money left the "client account", set up by Whyte for the takeover, on September 8 last year? And if it did, to whom did it go? And for what? No point asking that other bloke, David Grier, who also appeared to be a member of the takeover crew. He knows nothing about Rangers' day-to-day running or the state of the club's finances. He said so, just the other day.

 

Yet in the lead-up to the buy-out he was introduced to Rangers' board as a financial advisor and they continue to insist Grier spoke on various matters, including the "big" tax case that could leave Rangers facing a £49m bill.

 

They also believe he accompanied Donald McIntyre, who was Rangers' finance director, to a meeting with the revenue about that very case. Surely not. After all, only last week Grier told Record Sport that he isn't a tax expert.

 

He also said he had no knowledge of the £24.4m Rangers raised by selling off tranches of future season tickets to Ticketus. But he'd made his lack of intelligence on that front clear some time ago.

 

On April 27 last year to be precise. That was when he sent an email stating that Rangers - he wrote "we", even though he also claims not to have been advising on the day-to-day operation - have yet to open any discussions with Ticketus.

 

Strange that because, as has already been reported, a letter from Whyte's company, Liberty Capital, and signed by the owner to Ticketus, dated March 8, confirms the intention to sell season tickets.

 

Then, on April 7, lawyers on behalf of Ticketus deposit £24.4m into the client account.

 

So that means that 20 days after the money was in place no one had bothered to tell Grier, who incidentally had actually been brought in by Liberty Capital. Again, he said so himself.

 

But he needn't feel bad if he has been kept out of the loop. He has the same level of importance as Rangers legions. Apparently they don't need to know either.

 

However, what we all know is this is a complicated piece of business right enough and how Whyte, who always wanted to become a major player in the world of high finance, must regret the moment he decided to step into the glare of the floodlights.

 

From dabbling in plant hire and security firms, someone convinced him it would be a good idea to try football, although to be fair to him he might have seen some kind of analogy or connection.

 

After all, his goal when he started out in the worldofbusiness was to amass "major league personal wealth", likening the money to points in a game.

 

The idea, he explained, is to use those points, or wealth, to measure yourself against the Bransons of this world. Of course that was before he found himself in this pickle.

 

And it was also when he was manoeuvring under the radar in the world of corporate takeover and recovery, often a very murky pool.

 

The deeper you go the darker it becomes until it's impossible to see the great whites.

 

And before you know it they've bitten you right in the assets. Then, of course, it's too late.

 

Many believe it is already too late for Rangers and not because they've been savaged by a bigger beast in the SPL playground. They have been brought to their knees by Whyte himself, even though he says he's been left to clean up the previous regime's mess.

 

But even if he repeats this claim until he's blue in the face it won't make it any more believable. The EBT tax case apart, the problems threatening to bring Rangers down are of Whyte's making. With a little help from his friends of course.

 

http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/jimtraynor/2012/02/stop-the-blame-excuses-craig.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyRecord%2FJimTraynor+%28The+Daily+Record+-+Jim+Traynor%29

[Zappa 0]

Oops... beaten to it again....

[forlanssister 3,061]

Is there any need to be so dismissive and flippant of other guys views? There is no reason why both scenarios can't be true.

 

I'm no more flippant of their views in that post than I am of my own.

[calscot 0]

I still don't get it - the ONLY large threat to Rangers existence has so far been the big tax bill. Whyte may also be a threat but then his is choosing a pretty challenging fight with such a greedy monster already in the room. It's like taking on Godzilla, so you can loot Tokyo. There are easier scraps for scraps.

[Zappa 0]

Perhaps I should have said "strongly inferred" instead of "called" but the meaning remains the same.

 

I actually read it that Traynor is insinuating that Grier has been involved/complicit in the whole plan since before the takeover and may have helped put a plan together a year ago that's led us to where we are today.

[Little General 80]

excuse my ignorance but will a AGM/EGM be called.can it be called?

[forlanssister 3,061]

I actually read it that Traynor is insinuating that Grier has been involved/complicit in the whole plan since before the takeover and may have helped put a plan together a year ago that's led us to where we are today.

 

Agreed ergo he knew what he said he didn't know !

[forlanssister 3,061]

excuse my ignorance but will a AGM/EGM be called.can it be called?

 

Can't see it.