craig whyte

[Darthter 542]

All our liabilities for the year on a month to month basis.

 

so, the same debts there were being paid on time month on month, and were known to Whyte at the time of the take over!!!

 

Whyte was paying most of the debts - just not the tax one. There is a shortfall of cash which has been the case for most years since DA arrived. What is the difference? What the previous owner did was borrow money to pay the debts. Whyte has borrowed money but not given it to the club.

 

Whyte appears to have been paying a lot of the debt....just not the important ones. You claim that SDM was borrowing money to pay the debts, yet the clubs debt was falling, with plans in place to reduce further. Whyte has borrowed money, therefore increasing the debt, but has not improved the clubs position any.

 

I can't see how that's relevant. We basically have had the bank and SDM settling bills we couldn't pay.

Last I heard was that SDM was not inputting any further cash into the club, hence the declining financial position....

However it was done...the club was paying its bills and not being dragged through court cases - which IMHO is very relevant!!!

 

 

You seem to be changing the issue. The money should be irrelevant as they shouldn't have been sold. It seems, Whyte has pocketed the money and Rangers haven't seen it. But that's a different issue and not related to what we're talking about - unless you're having a different discussion to me that wasn't apparent in your earlier posts.

No changing of issue, we're discussing cash flow & the payment of bills/debts....The Arsenal shares raised cash which SHOULD have been used to pay bills. He sold an asset which should have helped the clubs situation, but opted to divert the cash elsewhere and got stung!!!

 

It doesn't exist. But again that is irrelevant to the issue in question.

Exactly....the contractual investment doesn't exist. If it did, the club wouldn't be in the mess that its in right now. There is only one person responsible for this - Craig Thomas Whyte!!! If the money HAD been paid into the club, there would have been enough cash to cover monthly runnings of the club, therefore no need to siphon of the PAYE/NI contributions to cover regular bills, and therefore no need for HMRC to force Administration - again all pretty relevant to me!!

 

Maybe you should start a new thread as we're now not talking about the same thing.

 

I think you need to look more into what state the club was in before Whyte took over. The club was fragile but the sword of Damocles was hanging over its head with the threat of unpayable tax bills.

 

Whyte seen an opportunity to remove that threat and put some money in his pocket. His methods are unsound and look pretty unethical and certainly unpopular but probably effective in the end. What is left of Rangers at the end is anyone's guess.

 

So far, that threat hasn't been lifted though....the big tax case is still there as is the other monies owed to HMRC and no sign at the moment of a CVA being agreed. In the 9 months that Whyte has been in charge, the financial situation overall has been decimated. For the past 3 years the club has gone about its business with the tax case hanging over it, and still maintained results on the pitch. Whyte comes it and look at where we are now. I REALLY struggle to see how anyone other than Whyte can be held directly responsible for our current situation.

[calscot 0]

However it was done...the club was paying its bills and not being dragged through court cases - which IMHO is very relevant!!!

 

Not true, the club had not paid the small tax bill and were being sued for the big tax bill.

 

No changing of issue, we're discussing cash flow & the payment of bills/debts....The Arsenal shares raised cash which SHOULD have been used to pay bills. He sold an asset which should have helped the clubs situation, but opted to divert the cash elsewhere and got stung!!!

 

We were discussing what led us into administration. I have to disagree about the Arsenal shares - they should NEVER have been sold. EVER.

 

Exactly....the contractual investment doesn't exist. If it did, the club wouldn't be in the mess that its in right now. There is only one person responsible for this - Craig Thomas Whyte!!! If the money HAD been paid into the club, there would have been enough cash to cover monthly runnings of the club, therefore no need to siphon of the PAYE/NI contributions to cover regular bills, and therefore no need for HMRC to force Administration - again all pretty relevant to me!!

 

I'll have to disagree with you on this. Whyte is not the only guilty party in this crime. He's the guy who nicks your wallet when you're unconscious after been beaten to a pulp by someone else. You seem to me, like the guy who wakes up and thinks the thief is the one who hit him.

 

So far, that threat hasn't been lifted though....the big tax case is still there as is the other monies owed to HMRC and no sign at the moment of a CVA being agreed. In the 9 months that Whyte has been in charge, the financial situation overall has been decimated. For the past 3 years the club has gone about its business with the tax case hanging over it, and still maintained results on the pitch. Whyte comes it and look at where we are now. I REALLY struggle to see how anyone other than Whyte can be held directly responsible for our current situation.

 

If you think we were fine before Whyte and everything has gone pear-shaped since then I think you need a better understanding of the situation. Armageddon was being threatened by the big tax case; Whyte just got in there with a pre-emptive strike. Trouble is the club was doomed either way - unless Whyte jumped the gun - ie we actually win the tax case.

Edited March 8, 2012 by calscot

[Bluedell 5,356]

I would say one is specific, the other is general. The former leads to supposing that not paying the tax is ONLY reason we are in administration, which is not true. There is a bigger picture. When you run out of money it's not just because of the last pound you spent.

 

I'm saying you're skint when you run out of money. He's saying you're only skint in the case when you've no money after you've paid your taxes.

 

I interpret what he is saying differently from you, and I think that you're both correct.