chilledbear 16 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Unless someone has been telling lies again !! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong, but are the SFA not supposed to know our shareholders? If so, how does telling the fans going to make any difference? I think you are very likely to be wrong, given that the people who told the SFA who they supposedly were are serial liars whenever they speak, even their silence is evasion as Deloitte found out when asking about the same thing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Wait a minute - am I reading this wrong? As it stands at the moment, the SFA have a verbal assurance from our board - the current one, plus the people who have bailed out - that everything is OK as regards ownership. But, if it turns out not to be OK, they will hammer us again? If the SFA don't know, is there some way we can force them to find out? This is absolutely stinking. I really hope I've misread these posts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 If Whyte is indeed pulling the strings and it eventually comes out, last seasons title and any other trophies we add to it will be stripped for sure. It's in our interest to get to the bottom of this as soon as. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Wait a minute - am I reading this wrong? As it stands at the moment, the SFA have a verbal assurance from our board - the current one, plus the people who have bailed out - that everything is OK as regards ownership. But, if it turns out not to be OK, they will hammer us again? If the SFA don't know, is there some way we can force them to find out? This is absolutely stinking. I really hope I've misread these posts. Regan's final sentence in his statement is quite clear as to possible consequences over something dragged up again by the requisitioners something that had already been settled at that, absolute madness to have it back on the table again. seems there are those who would wish to test him on it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 The only thing that frightens me is that people like you see nothing wrong in putting the clubs existence on the line for God knows what, you won't be doing it in my name. Tell me Crucible who do you think were responsible for our club slipping into administration, failing to get a CVA and so forth? Who do you blame for that happening? Same with Hearts and Dunfermline if you've been following their stories, who do you blame? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 are we really suggesting that we should not find out who is running the club in case it's whyte. thats the polar opposite of what we should be doing. madness. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,409 Posted October 28, 2013 Author Share Posted October 28, 2013 After what we have been through we deserve and need to know who has their finger in the pie, normally most fans wouldn't really care,but this situation is not normal and we have been sucked dry by the parasites for too long. If they have the best interest for Rangers why hide?. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Wait a minute - am I reading this wrong? As it stands at the moment, the SFA have a verbal assurance from our board - the current one, plus the people who have bailed out - that everything is OK as regards ownership. But, if it turns out not to be OK, they will hammer us again? If the SFA don't know, is there some way we can force them to find out? This is absolutely stinking. I really hope I've misread these posts. IIRC from his Sportsound interview on Saturday, he said the SFA had a legally binding assurance from Malcolm Murray, Charles Green and Imran Ahmad that Whyte was not involved. I assumed therefore that it must be a written assurance. However, I am very interested to know the exact nature of said assurance, because if it is an assurance at the time of the transfer of SFA membership from oldco to newco, that Whyte had no involvement in running the club, that is something that would seem to be fairly easy to prove or disprove. But if its an assurance that Whyte has no shareholding in a company linked to or part of BPH or Margarita, that could be altogether different. Also, with the way Green and Ahmad seemed to do business, who's to say that something couldn't come out of the woodwork via Charlotte Fakes or some other source. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Or even more worrying, should this legally binding guarantee prove to false, it's not Green, Ahmad or Murray who will be held to account by the SFA, but the club they were running, i.e. Rangers. I have admitted to paranoia long before but this is a set-up. Why on earth would the governing body settle for a guarantee, written or verbal, instead of insisting on seeing the names on the papers? They ignore the law when it suits them, so there's no point wheeling out the old anonymity cobblers here. We're being set up again, man. We're being set up again. 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.