Zappa 0 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I have read two theories today that wouldn't be out of place on timmy boards, one saying ticketus may still be involved and now this about Whyte, I always thought you couldn't make it up seems I was wrong. The tims were saying Whyte was going to put the Club into admin by Xmas 2011 and most fans laughed it off as timmy crackpots talking crap and dreaming up fantasies of our Club's demise. Turned out they were indeed wrong because they were 7 weeks off the mark. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Trust me, that would be very, very easy to hide. Remember, we are talking about shifty bastards who know how to hide their involvement. We are also talking about complete incompetent bastards at the SFA too. If people are openly saying or claiming Whyte is about and involved it is hardly hidden from anyone, I would think even the incompetent SFA scan message boards. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 The tims were saying Whyte was going to put the Club into admin by Xmas 2011 and most fans laughed it off as timmy crackpots talking crap and dreaming up fantasies of our Club's demise. Turned out they were indeed wrong because they were 7 weeks off the mark. They also said we'd be back in admin by a few weeks when we formed the new company. They base their stuff on hope rather than knowledge. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 If people are openly saying or claiming Whyte is about and involved it is hardly hidden from anyone, I would think even the incompetent SFA scan message boards. Not really. People are saying it but at this point it is on message boards and no more than rumour. The SFA have to prove it to be the case. Are you suggesting that it would be difficult to hide from the SFA if Whyte WAS involved ? We have "institutional investors" that we still don't know who is behind the corporate veil. Is it really outwith the realms of possibility that whyte isn't behind one of those investors under someone else's name ? Do we honestly believe that it is that difficult for someone to front the money, and use their name, for Whyte's involvement ? Have we not seen how much of a devious, conning bastard Craig Whyte is ? Are we to believe he wouldn't stoop this low ? I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if he was somehow still lurking. I don't think he is, but I wouldn't be surprised. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Or + or - £1m? i.e. to the nearest million; so could be nothing at all? God knows, but the fact that Stockbridge even mentioned that £1m left by April projection suggests to me that he might have been knowingly preparing everyone for a worst case scenario. Mentioning stuff like that incidentally prepares us mentally for the club running low on cash, so that it doesn't come as a shock if/when it happens. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 They also said we'd be back in admin by a few weeks when we formed the new company. They base their stuff on hope rather than knowledge. Stockbridge's £50k overnight loan shows just how close they came to failing to pay the bills as they fell due then again perhaps it was only that weeks arrangement fee payment to Richard Hughes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Not really. People are saying it but at this point it is on message boards and no more than rumour. The SFA have to prove it to be the case. Are you suggesting that it would be difficult to hide from the SFA if Whyte WAS involved ? We have "institutional investors" that we still don't know who is behind the corporate veil. Is it really outwith the realms of possibility that whyte isn't behind one of those investors under someone else's name ? Do we honestly believe that it is that difficult for someone to front the money, and use their name, for Whyte's involvement ? Have we not seen how much of a devious, conning bastard Craig Whyte is ? Are we to believe he wouldn't stoop this low ? I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if he was somehow still lurking. I don't think he is, but I wouldn't be surprised. I would be more than very surprised that he was in any way involved, or are the people making the claims saying it is fact as opposed to rumourmongering. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfc52 0 Posted October 17, 2013 Author Share Posted October 17, 2013 I would be more than very surprised that he was in any way involved, or are the people making the claims saying it is fact as opposed to rumourmongering. Folk are giving an opinion, thought that was allowed? No? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Folk are giving an opinion, thought that was allowed? No? That why I asked is just unsubstantiated rumourmongering or claimed to be fact, I for one have no hesitation in dismissing it as rumour. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 That why I asked is just unsubstantiated rumourmongering or claimed to be fact, I for one have no hesitation in dismissing it as rumour. The sensible answer is that it is just rumour-mongering. For our sake I certainly hope it is ! 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.