Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

murray ran us into debt them paid the debt off.

 

but leaving that aside p murray is ok as he joined when the debt was there and it was cleared when he left.

 

Can you provide bona fide audited figures to back your claim up, I saw figures from audited accounts posted by Admin on RM an accountant I believe, that showed the debt increased under Paul Murray and others.

 

Are you able to refute that claim and audited figures without contradiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide bona fide audited figures to back your claim up, I saw figures from audited accounts posted by Admin on RM an accountant I believe, that showed the debt increased under Paul Murray and others.

 

Are you able to refute that claim and audited figures without contradiction.

 

debt fell from 49 million from the day aj took over to 14 million when whyte bought us.

 

murray was there a bit before the.

 

we won 3 in a row and made the uefa final during that time.

 

debts may have risen 1 year in 4 or something like any statistic it can be made to show anything. but regardless of what debt did. no one got a 100% bonus for winning the 4th division or winning anything for that matter. nor did millions get paid out to shareholders.

 

nor did he ever use rangers money to try to cling to his blazer in a frivolous court action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

debt fell from 49 million from the day aj took over to 14 million when whyte bought us.

 

murray was there a bit before the.

 

we won 3 in a row and made the uefa final during that time.

 

 

 

debts may have risen 1 year in 4 or something like any statistic it can be made to show anything. but regardless of what debt did. no one got a 100% bonus for winning the 4th division or winning anything for that matter. nor did millions get paid out to shareholders.

 

 

So you have nothing no bona fides to back up your assertion which was the very simple request I made, while the required bona fides that discredit your claim were published by a knowledgeable source in another place. Your claim that PM is therefore OK is shown up for the nonsense and propaganda that it is.

 

The below is the figures from that knowledgeable post by Boss for your perusal and elucidation.

 

Net debt at 30 June 2007 £16,542,000

 

Paul Murray appointed director 20 September 2007

 

Net debt at 30 June 2008 £21,559,000

Net debt at 30 June 2009 £31,118,000

Net debt at 30 June 2010 £27,074,000 (last audited accounts)

 

Sometimes facts are annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a good number of people out there who could do the job of CEO of Rangers well. Whether you thought Mather was doing a good job or not he's hardly irreplaceable. He's chosen to resign, we have to assume its his decision, as such we should respect it and wish him well. He's done okay out of his short time at Rangers whatever difficulties he's experienced he's considerably better off than he was before he joined us so we shouldn't feel he's been hard done by.

The only people who could realistically have pressured Mather to leave are his fellow board members, no one outside of the club could have brought this about no matter how hard they tried.

So he's either decided the role isn't for him and decided to leave or the rest of the board have decided he should leave, lets stop looking to blame or credit others with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you have nothing no bona fides to back up your assertion which was the very simple request I made, while the required bona fides that discredit your claim were published by a knowledgeable source in another place. Your claim that PM is therefore OK is shown up for the nonsense and propaganda that it is.

 

The below is the figures from that knowledgeable post by Boss for your perusal and elucidation.

 

Net debt at 30 June 2007 £16,542,000

 

Paul Murray appointed director 20 September 2007

 

Net debt at 30 June 2008 £21,559,000

Net debt at 30 June 2009 £31,118,000

Net debt at 30 June 2010 £27,074,000 (last audited accounts)

 

Sometimes facts are annoying.

 

why are you using celtc style net debt figures? wh are we using 2007 figure the first figure shoud be 2008. thats the first after he joined.

 

 

 

what was the debt in September 2007?

 

boss has an article on rm giving debt at 49 million circa 2008. an article he stands by when questioned. rm seems to be down but i might post it later if i can be bothered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.