RANGERRAB 3,258 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Lloyd's sent their man in to facilitate such a deal. Further down the line they got more money through the sale of Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park. the question that should have been asked is why LBG were so concerned about Rangers debt which was a paltry 3% of the MIH debt of over £700m. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 If it isn't that important to you then it is hard to understand why you keep making the same point ad nauseam and why you feel the need to add comments like ""it doesn't quite sit right with me that you didn't smell a rat with Green." I admit that I didn't at the outset, guilty m'lud; and as you have previously acknowledged I was in the majority. That said I will accept the compliments and be thankful that I am not applying to you for employment. Might one ask your occupation or profession? Seriously, Time4_Change, unless you are self-employed, tell him nowt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 the question that should have been asked is why LBG were so concerned about Rangers debt which was a paltry 3% of the MIH debt of over £700m. They weren't concerend about Rangers debt IMHO, but making money of one of the few sellable assets of the crumbling empire that was MIH. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Your first and second paragraphs totally contradict each other. There was plenty of 'proper information' provided, but those who didn't want to believe it cried "Philwhatsisname shite" and put their fingers back in their ears. I reckon calscot read enough of Gillivan at the beginning to mark him out as a Rangers hating bigot ever since. And fair enough. That is not to say that you should disregard other per se, unless they turn into another incarnation of that renegade bigot. He and others spout bucketloads of shyte and eventually some of it was true. That does not turn the rest of the shyte into gold as well. And, BTW, calscot is very true about cryptic innuendo instead of proper information about Whyte. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,258 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 They weren't concerend about Rangers debt IMHO, but making money of one of the few sellable assets of the crumbling empire that was MIH. They weren't concerned about Rangers debt? Why then did they put Donald Muir on the board? Not for one minute do I believe SDM willingly sold to Whyte. I believe was forced to do so by those in charge of LBG at the time. You know who they were don't you? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 They weren't concerned about Rangers debt? Why then did they put Donald Muir on the board? Not for one minute do I believe SDM willingly sold to Whyte. I believe was forced to do so by those in charge of LBG at the time. You know who they were don't you? Who was it Rab? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 They weren't concerned about Rangers debt? Why then did they put Donald Muir on the board? Not for one minute do I believe SDM willingly sold to Whyte. I believe was forced to do so by those in charge of LBG at the time. You know who they were don't you? When LBG had the chance to sell Rangers as a part of MIH, they did so apparently at first opportunity. Because it was a sellable asset. That they installed Muir in the boardroom was obviously reasoned by the debt that was accumulated and needed to be adressed as well. AFAIK it was actually adressed (and being reduced) and there was no pressing need to sell the club at the time. Which was my point. It would be grand if people would have and would spend as much time about the Yahoos' involvement in this and uncovered some facts than they did with Ahmad, Green, and Co.. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 It would be grand if people would have and would spend as much time about the Yahoos' involvement in this and uncovered some facts than they did with Ahmad, Green, and Co.. What's stopping you? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 867 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 They weren't concerned about Rangers debt? Why then did they put Donald Muir on the board? Not for one minute do I believe SDM willingly sold to Whyte. I believe was forced to do so by those in charge of LBG at the time. You know who they were don't you? The logical extension of your theory on this would be something like the scenario which Andy has suggested a few times (with tongue in cheek, I think). i.e. It's been a massive Timmy stitch-up from that day one. LBG forced the sale to Whyte, who chose Duff & Phelps, who accepted Green's bid, who made sure certain anonymous consortia had a controlling stake in the club, who proxied their votes to Easdale.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 the question that should have been asked is why LBG were so concerned about Rangers debt which was a paltry 3% of the MIH debt of over £700m. Because it was an easy target much easier to liquidate than over-valued property. 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.