forlanssister

It's a SPL matter not SFA.

Who failed to publish accounts? Who failed to hold an AGM? Whose incompetence has cost us a minimum 1 year ban from Europe? Who neglected to reveal their banning as company director?

Na, price was £59 per night or £34 pay it now, cheap enough to put up with the purple.

Alfred Street, stayed there last time, stayed at Cathedral Quarter before too, both decent enough gaffs. Think there's another one now beside the Titanic exhibition.

Looks like some investor/s haven't actually delivered the promised monies after the last share placing, what odds would a bookie give on it being Whyte?

Got Premier Inn 2 nights for £68.

Bizarre considering that is the very thing they're trying to construct!

Pfffffttt not even a bit of opium smuggling/trading boring sods!!!

It's a noble sentiment but not one I fear would get the unanimity required to make it work.

I'm led to believe he has deleted some of his most strident pro Whyte blogs. It's hard to take him seriously nowadays to the extent even when he has a valid point with evidence to back it up it fails to make it's mark. His damascene conversion from Whyte's greatest cheerleader to the BK's chief propagandist hasn't in my opinion anyway done them much good overall.

The very same site and the very same author, weird eh?

Apparently if you post links to and content from that site you're something akin to a Taig with an agenda!... (for the cerebrally challenged this is not to be taken in any way, shape or form as impugning Bears)

They claim his shareholding to be an "irrelevance" for that statement to be truthful then they would have to take measures to do so but they fact that all their actions to do so so far extend to merely asking him to sign them over would indicate that Duff & Phelps are at a loss as how to separate Whyte from his shareholding. Of course the shareholding does become irrelevant if the buyers' preferred method of exiting administration is liquidation.

Statement urges Whyte to give up his shareholding. Perhaps this is merely a technical measure in their role as directors before Duff and Phelps can take alternative measures to achieve the same goal?

The article re the tweets

Find this weird indeed, note he's being employed as consultant as opposed to an actual lawyer. Gary Withey breaks silence about Rangers crisis Gary Withey, Rangers’ company secretary and a former partner with Collyer Bristow – the London law firm who advised Craig Whyte on his takeover at Ibrox last May – spoke on Wednesday night for the first time since the club went into administration on Feb 14. The man who was at one point described by the administrators, Duff and Phelps, as “key to the understanding of all sorts of guarantees and deals” at Rangers, quit Collyer Bristow in early March, citing family reasons for his departure. At the time former colleagues indicated that Withey had received threats so serious that they were reported to the Metropolitan Police. The Met, though, declared that they did not have a record of any such complaint and Strathclyde Police stated that they had not been advised by any English police force of threats emanating from within their force area. However, Withey told The Daily Telegraph: “The threat was very serious and very specific, with details relating to my family, which were deeply alarming. I am still in possession of it. “My mobile phone number was also published online – I had to change it – and I can assure you that the matter was reported to the police.” Asked how aware he had been that Whyte was siphoning PAYE and VAT income at source to use as cash flow instead of remitting it to HMRC, Withey said: “The only people who knew about that – apart from Craig Whyte – were the people who worked in the accounts department. I was not involved in the day to day running of the club. “What did surprise me was that Rangers went into administration when they did because HMRC had been fairly straightforward to deal with and it looked as they were going to agree terms with the club. Then they became belligerent. “I have had no contact with Rangers since the administrators came in and although it seems that some people think I left Collyer Bristow with a financial package, I did not get any kind of pay-off.” Withey is acting as a consultant for Segens Solicitors – the company’s specialities include mergers and acquisitions and insolvency and bankruptcy. Senior partner, Michael Segen, told The Lawyer magazine: “I’ve known Gary for many years and value his corporate expertise. I’m sure Gary will be a very valuable asset to this practice.” Duff and Phelps have until April 16 to file any alleged claims of professional negligence or breach of fiduciary duty against Collyer Bristow on behalf of Rangers but Withey stated that he knew nothing about the case and would not be present in court on Monday. In another development, the Ibrox administrators criticised the timing of the Scottish Premier League’s announcement of proposals for more severe penalties for clubs that go into administration. Rangers were deducted 10 points as soon as their insolvency was notified in February and the resultant gap of 14 points between them and Celtic effectively ended the race for the championship, which the Parkhead side clinched at Kilmarnock last Saturday. If proposals to be put before the SPL clubs on April 30 are accepted, any club undergoing an insolvency event will be penalised 15 points or a third of their previous season’s points total – whichever is the greater. One non-Old Firm club chairman told The Daily Telegraph: “Rangers were deducted 10 points but they are still second in the table. A 10-point deduction at the bottom has a different effect and, by allowing a variation in the punishment, it can be made to be more equitable across the board.” Rangers finished last season as champions with 93 points, so if the sanction had been applied when they went into administration two months ago they would have been deducted 31 points, a sanction that would have left them currently level with Inverness Caley Thistle, who are in 10th place in the table. That in turn would have meant that the final Old Firm derby of the season, scheduled for Celtic Park on April 29, could not have taken place and the season would have finished with an odd number of meetings of the Glasgow pair for the first time ever. Moreover, it would have deprived the broadcasters of an instalment of their biggest attraction for viewers. The proposed penalties cannot be backdated but they would apply to Rangers if the club does not emerge with a CVA before next season opens on Aug 4. Should Rangers still be in administration on that date, they would open their campaign with a minimum deduction of 21 points and a maximum of 26 points, if they win their remaining five games this season. If the proposals are accepted and Rangers are admitted as a ‘newco’ to the SPL before August, they would be deducted an immediate 10 points and the same again for 2013-14. Another proposal clearly shaped by recent events at Ibrox would require clubs to report any failure to make payments to HMRC in respect of PAYE and National Insurance contributions. Any club suffering such a ‘default event’ would have a player registration embargo imposed. In a suggested change driven by Hearts’ failure to pay players on time on several occasions this season, such incidents will be deemed a breach of SPL rules. Rangers’ administrators issued a statement that said they had hoped to announce acceptance in principle of an offer for the club but could not do so because they were now obliged to advise prospective purchasers of the proposals and give them time to digest the possible consequences. They added that “the fact that such measures are being considered at such a sensitive point in the sale process at Rangers is disruptive and regrettable”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9198436/Gary-Withey-breaks-silence-about-Rangers-crisis.html?

What's the point of playing in a league which is rigged to ensure you cannot win it?

I'm not implying he's lying I'm saying that the statement was crass,stupid and unnecessary and is more an example of a PR mans' f*&k up than anything else.

I don't know what they say I didn't visit their site, the c&p and the link are to a .sg page

Some people need to give themselves a slap with the reality stick. Ngs' statement re ECWC was in my opinion crass, stupid, ignorant and totally unnecessary, it was a classic own goal. It was designed to prove his Rangers credentials but all it has done is bring suspicion upon them. It's the stuff we ridicule virtually every foreign Tim signing for! If you think I'm the only one who questions the sincerity of the claim then read this. I'll pass on this opportunity to respond to my very own Arthur Richard Jackson.

This one was always going to bite him on the arse it was an act of gross stupidity, needs to give his PR guy a boot in the baws. Is Bill Ng lying about his Rangers heritage? Bill Ng recently spoke about his love for Rangers FC, claiming that he was not getting involved with the club for alternative reasons but because he was a fan and in love with the club. The Singapore businessman made claims in an interview with Scottish newspaper The Daily Record that he watched Rangers lift the European Cup Winners Cup in 1972. However, a quick google search from Twitter user @CelticResearch shows that the game wasnâ??t even available to watch in Singapore. The image below shows the TV listings in Singapore on the day of the match and the European Cup Winners Cup tie is not listed at all. Despite this, Bill Ng still believes he is the right man to run Rangers FC: â??We want to show that weâ??re not just the type of owners who go in with no understanding and are in it for the money. â??We will install a board of directors made up of Scottish businessmen who support the club. My mission will be accomplished when another young boy watches Rangers lift a European trophy.â? Should that ever happen, perhaps the young boy will be able to watch it this time. http://www.justsports.com.sg/2012/04/12/is-bill-ng-lying-about-his-rangers-heritage/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-bill-ng-lying-about-his-rangers-heritage

Who's saying the outcome won't be known before we exit administration it's not simply a case of the administrators accepting an offer and that's it.

All the more reason for the administrators to accelerate rather than stall the process, it's apparent that the interests of all the prospective buyers would be served by bringing a conclusion sooner or later.

See posts #7 #8 & #9:whistle:

Pioneer Park?