the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Bills run up by the company that virtually became the club? bills run up by an individual. (again if you believe green) the company you refer to didn't even exist. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComeOffit 0 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Still a court case about Whyte misleading the club over the funding. After whytes case, hopefully we'll see green in the dock then. He done virtually the same thing, only on a smaller scale because the club was much cheaper to buy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 No, you simply cannot state that as fact. Absolutely you cannot state that as fact. This bill is the one we are debating, correct ? This bill inured whilst buying us, agreed. However, has this bill been paid yet ? NO. So, either you cannot state as fact that he is using ST money to pay it, or you are saying that ST monies are the only monies the club have received. And I KNOW you are not that naive to believe that ST monies are the only monies the club have received. The club has more than one revenue stream, even if ST's is the vast majority of those revenue streams. previous invoices have been paid and we have admitted liability though not in the full amount. st is the only revenue stream that matters. i have also said any number of times hes using club funds to purchase the club (or costs associated with such) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComeOffit 0 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 He only runs the club... Which he gets well paid for, not including his bonuses, and ALL living expenses. Close on £3m chucky will be pulling, in less than a year. Nice work if you can get it. So far he's overseen us getting humped from 3 cups, losing all our best players, and stumbling towards winning a pub league having to endure some of the worst football seen at Ibrox for years. Great value for money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Still a court case about Whyte misleading the club over the funding. maybe they can do green at the same time. i feel mislead. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 So were AJ etc wrong to use ticketus? Yes, AJ & whoever else involved in our borrowing deals with Ticketus prior to Whyte were wrong to do so (IMO). Ticketus are glorified loan sharks with high interest rates and for Rangers to have been using them for cashflow shortfalls is unacceptable to me. I can only assume that they felt there was no other option (or no better option) to help them bridge the gaps in the club's cash flow because no doubt our bankers wouldn't increase our borrowing facilities, but to my mind high interest rate loans are pretty much like throwing money down a drain. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Yes, AJ & whoever else involved in our borrowing deals with Ticketus prior to Whyte were wrong to do so (IMO). Ticketus are glorified loan sharks with high interest rates and for Rangers to have been using them for cashflow shortfalls is unacceptable to me. I can only assume that they felt there was no other option (or no better option) to help them bridge the gaps in the club's cash flow because no doubt our bankers wouldn't increase our borrowing facilities, but to my mind high interest rate loans are pretty much like throwing money down a drain. i dont think the interest rates are particularly bad. not ideal of course but nothing like loan sharking. maybe 15% am i wrong? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Well how many supporters have reported money stolen from their bank accounts by Green? To be fair he did try to collect money from peoples bank accounts through direct debits when he legally had no mandate to do so. Green didnt use ST money to purchase the club though. I thought we had been through this before. Using it to purchase the club, as Whyte effectively did, was illegal was it not under Company Law ? Green used it for sourcing investors rather than the purchase of the club. I suspect there is a difference. We still dont know who paid it although I would expect it to be the club. There's a difference all right though there are parallels and I can see gs's point of view, however I do not think it can be proven that either Whyte or Green used "financial assistance" which is using the companies own funds to fund its purchase which as you state correctly is illegal, though I don't think there is any doubt that the fans have effectively bought the club twice in the last two years. One thing's for sure Green or perhaps rather Ahmed is far smarter than Whyte. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 bought it twice and own 5% of it now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Still a court case about Whyte misleading the club over the funding. There's not, though there is a court case pertaining to the fact that the Whyte deal denied RFC plc £25m of investment via Paul Murray's recapitalisation plan. 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.