aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I hear what you say Gaz. But, at the moment Whyte CW IS the only person who stepped up. No-one else had the baws or a plan in place to "grasp the nettle"All reported "evidence" definitely paints a shady background. "Evidence" gathered by such concerned Rangers' supporters as marc daly and phil 3 stupit names to name but only two. We all saw the contrived bbc documentary, over dramatised with the odd sprinkle of half truths with many other full truths left out because it didn't suit daly's agenda. An agenda which sole purpose was to blacken the name of our Club. It is now abundantly clear that although Whyte bought the Club last May, he already had his plan ready and now we have reached a vital part of that plan. I would have confidence in anyone else coming in if, they too had a plan in place for yesterday's eventuality ready to unfold (as much as could be disclosed, names, cash amounts involved etc) the moment administration was announced. As I said before, unless Paul Murray, or anyone else for that matter, can provide factual proof of his/their plan, then we have to follow the only plan, Whyte's plan. The Club was up for sale for 3 years prior to Craig Whyte's purchase, where was Paul Murray and HIS plan, or anyone else's either ? Christ, they've long enough to come up with one ! The club was for sale for years prior to the Whyte takeover as you say BG, but it was patently unsalable in it's present form, with the HMRC case hanging over it like the sword of Damocles. Ellis had a look at the books and the story was put out he was unsuitable, maybes aye maybes naw. Then Whyte (with the links to Ellis) comes along with his master plan and the rest they say is (bad) history. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 The club was for sale for years prior to the Whyte takeover as you say BG, but it was patently unsalable in it's present form, with the HMRC case hanging over it like the sword of Damocles. Ellis had a look at the books and the story was put out he was unsuitable, maybes aye maybes naw. Then Whyte (with the links to Ellis) comes along with his master plan and the rest they say is (bad) history. It remains my opinion that Whyte will be handsomely paid to do this dirty work by the eventual owner who hired him in the first place to clear the decks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juffery 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 It remains my opinion that Whyte will be handsomely paid to do this dirty work by the eventual owner who hired him in the first place to clear the decks. A theory that I think may not be too far off the mark. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 It remains my opinion that Whyte will be handsomely paid to do this dirty work by the eventual owner who hired him in the first place to clear the decks. Amazing, the things you read on this forum isn't it folks? Why doesn't someone start a new thread "Guess who's paying Whyte" ffs! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Amazing, the things you read on this forum isn't it folks? Why doesn't someone start a new thread "Guess who's paying Whyte" ffs! Think we're all uptight just now. However, agree that we should take things one step at a time. I think we're confusing the crime and the culprits. At present, I have no interest in culprits. Let's determine the facts first. Then the rest will fall into place. Hercule Poirot Loyal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laudrup11 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Well that post has certainly put the frighteners on me, However. I'm not doubting the word of the OP from FF (who would not question anything that guy Whyte is capable of) but it's all coming together a little bit to neat for P Murray for me. Whyte was brought in to do the exact job he has done by D Murray, Whyte brief was to get rid of HMRC and all potential liabilities and debt, clear out the old regime, so no guilt by association to Whyte could be established post Administration, apart fro Bain whom i actually believe whyte had a personal dislike for. Take us then into administration and and come out the other side, restructured and debt free ready for new buyers. Low and behold look who is in the driving seat? i'm sorry i'm not buying into this P Murray the new and latest only show in town just yet. I agree with you on this mate no one knows who to trust as things are still unclear and too confusing to fully appreciate what Plans if any Whyte has.! Sccgers is a good poster on FF and puts up alot of good info but he himself has said Paul Murray has told him a few things and warned him of stuff all may be true but also possible that Paul Murray is trying to gain support on forums for his own agenda and possible bid to get club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) BTW Mark Daly reporting that there are calls for the Financial Regulator to investigate:- The former chairman of the Westminster treasury select committee has called for the financial regulator to probe Craig Whyte's takeover of Rangers. John McFall said the Financial Services Authority (FSA) could help answer questions about an apparent shortfall of cash at the Ibrox club. Rangers appointed Duff and Phelps to act as administrators on Tuesday. The firm has denied having any conflict of interest arising from its links to Craig Whyte prior to his takeover. Rangers was placed in administration on Tuesday after a legal stand-off at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Owner Craig Whyte lodged papers at the court on Monday indicating that the club was considering administration within 10 days. When HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) - one of the club's main creditors - filed to have its own administrator appointed on Tuesday, both parties agreed that Duff and Phelps would be appointed. Joint administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, from Duff and Phelps, later confirmed HMRC's action stemmed from the alleged non-payment of £9m in VAT and PAYE dating back to last year when Mr Whyte bought the club from Sir David Murray. Angry fans have since demanded answers from Mr Whyte over what has happened to all the cash which has apparently passed through Rangers since then. Mr Whyte claims to have injected £33m of his own money to pay off the club's bank debt and fulfil the other obligations of the takeover. Ticketus borrowing Going on previous seasons, Rangers income for the nine months Mr Whyte has been in charge should be about £26m. It has also been reported that he borrowed about £24m from Ticketus against a share of season ticket sales for the next four years. David Grier (centre) leaving Ibrox with administrator David Whitehouse (left) David Grier (centre) helped Craig Whyte during his takeover of Rangers The club is also said to have received about £5m for the sale of top goalscorer Nikica Jelavić to Everton in the January transfer window. The combined total of these figures is £55m. Mr Whyte has publicly stated that the monthly cost of running Rangers is about £3.75m. Based on this figure, the cost of running the club during Mr Whyte's tenure would have been about £34m. In theory, that should leave a surplus of £21m. If the £9m figure claimed by HMRC over alleged unpaid VAT and PAYE is added, then the surplus cash figure would stand at £30m. Working with these figures, some fans have been asking why Rangers was placed in administration. Steven Morrow Stirling University John McFall, the former Labour MP who chaired the House of Commons treasury select committee, said the matter should be investigated by the Financial Services Authority. He said: "When you spend money you don't have and you use HMRC and the taxpayer as your private bank then it has tragic consequences for Rangers as an institution, Scottish football, fans and for Scottish community. "Rangers are on the stock exchange and there is a renewed case for the FSA looking at this issue. Parliament is just giving the FSA the opportunity to have what's called judgemental discretion. That means looking at the business models of institutions and Rangers is a good case. "Did the directors do their duty? And, if they did their duty legally, were there any corners cut as a result of that? "It's the taxpayer who's on the hook here and the taxpayer has got to be paid and football clubs have got to realise that they have got to comply with the regulations that are laid down by parliament and HMRC. "There's lots of questions around here, there's no specific answers so the case for a renewed investigation by the FSA is something that supporters and those with an interest in Rangers should be looking at as well." Previous board Meanwhile, it has emerged that David Grier, a partner at Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps, was centrally involved in Craig Whyte's takeover from previous owner Sir David Murray. As emails obtained by BBC Scotland show, he even assured the previous board that Mr Whyte's bid had already secured a "time to pay" deal with HMRC. Email The BBC has seen emails relating to the takeover of the club This has led one academic to raise concerns over the appointment of Duff and Phelps as Rangers' administrators. Steven Morrow, senior lecturer in sport finance at Stirling University, said: "If there is evidence of a prior relationship between those involved in an administrative capacity and the directors of Rangers Football Club, then I think that would raise concerns among some of the creditors. "This is because the role of the administrator is to be independent, to look after the interests of all the creditors, not to be seen to have any particular interest in one group of creditors. "Their job is to try to make sure the organisation is a going concern but protect the interests of all creditors and that's what the process is about." Duff and Phelps has denied any conflict of interest in acting as administrators. In a statement, the firm said: "The appointment of D&P was approved by the Court of Session in Edinburgh and the appointment was agreed to by HMRC. "Indeed, HMRC withdrew their application to have an administrator of their choice appointed and are now engaging with D&P as the administration progresses. "There is no conflict of interest whatsoever as it is standard practice for companies to appoint their own administrators, who usually have provided advice on restructuring in the build up to an insolvency." Edited February 15, 2012 by bluebear54 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 "Rangers are on the stock exchange and there is a renewed case for the FSA looking at this issue. Parliament is just giving the FSA the opportunity to have what's called judgemental discretion. That means looking at the business models of institutions and Rangers is a good case. I thought we came out of the stock exchange. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Not wanting to rain on the FSA's parade but they couldn't find beer in a pub. Will that be McFall the rip roaring Mhank supporter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Not wanting to rain on the FSA's parade but they couldn't find beer in a pub. Will that be McFall the rip roaring Mhank supporter. That's my main concern. Sure there is using the legal system to sort things out....then there's the mhanks within the legal system. 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.