calscot 0 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 not even the guys that took 2/3 off the debt and warned against whyte? I don't agree with the way they reduced the debt; it could have been done more slowly and cleverly without strangling the finances. They also didn't really tackle the tax cases at all. I also thought the way they slagged of Whyte was poor as it just looked like mudslinging after the fact. They may have been right but they just came across as bitter and self serving. It did nothing to prevent what happened or help us in any way. I don't see much evidence of wisdom or competence from them and believe they contributed to where we are now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I don't agree with the way they reduced the debt; it could have been done more slowly and cleverly without strangling the finances. They also didn't really tackle the tax cases at all. I also thought the way they slagged of Whyte was poor as it just looked like mudslinging after the fact. They may have been right but they just came across as bitter and self serving. It did nothing to prevent what happened or help us in any way. I don't see much evidence of wisdom or competence from them and believe they contributed to where we are now. They conducted their own investigation into Whyte and actively tried to stop David Murray from signing off on the Whyte takeover. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Amokachi 0 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 not even the guys that took 2/3 off the debt and warned against whyte? They only reduced the debt because the bank forced them to. They actually wanted to increase it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I don't agree with the way they reduced the debt; it could have been done more slowly and cleverly without strangling the finances. They also didn't really tackle the tax cases at all. I also thought the way they slagged of Whyte was poor as it just looked like mudslinging after the fact. They may have been right but they just came across as bitter and self serving. It did nothing to prevent what happened or help us in any way. I don't see much evidence of wisdom or competence from them and believe they contributed to where we are now. I think you are wrong. 1. They reduced the debt significantly and, whilst doing so, still had a domestic stranglehold. We were still winning domestic trophies wihlst downsizing AND also whilst reducing the debt. On top of that you also have to consider the role played by LBG and whether they were demanding that debt be reduced swiftly. Either way they reduced the debt and still retained competitiveness, albeit domestically. Had we done so in a more reasoned fashion we may still have not qualified for Europe. 2. As Zappa says, they actually attempted to prevent the sale to Whyte BEFORE it went through so it cant really be considered mudslinging after tha fact. Indeed, Bain lost his job, in part, because he was part of the group that tried to prevent the sale. 3. They had no control over preventing SDM from selling to Whyte, so it is harsh in the extreme to blame them for "not preventing what happened". 4. I dont think there is too much doubt that they contributed - but the owner was an egotist where it was his way or the highway - even if they had spoken out against him they could have done nothing to prevent SDM running the club as he saw fit. Had they highlighted it they would have been gone and nothing would have changed. Perhaps they felt they could change SDM from the inside. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 They only reduced the debt because the bank forced them to. They actually wanted to increase it. Do we know that for a fact? I know Whyte said it, but I'd hardly call him a credible witness. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 They only reduced the debt because the bank forced them to. They actually wanted to increase it. perhaps. but then you ha e to count Muir and McGill back in. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy dewhurst 0 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 as long as mr dickson is doing an honest job good luck to him 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 5, 2012 Author Share Posted September 5, 2012 Martin Bain was more than happy to be Murray's Lackey, lets not sugar coat him because of how Whyte turned out. The likes of Greig and McClelland have been silent as well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Martin Bain was more than happy to be Murray's Lackey Up until Murray stepped down as Chairman for the last time he maybe was, but after that he seemed like a different CEO. He stood up for the club more and unless he lied to the SFA, then he stood up to Murray over the Whyte deal, but it was futile. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Up until Murray stepped down as Chairman for the last time he maybe was, but after that he seemed like a different CEO. He stood up for the club more and unless he lied to the SFA, then he stood up to Murray over the Whyte deal, but it was futile. Martin Bain stood up for Rangers that gave me a right good chuckle this morning. Must have missed the bit where everytime he spoke you saw Liewells hand up his arse. 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.