stewarty

Its idealistic and also unrealistic but we can only hope any future ownership structure seeks to reimburse all outstanding creditors.

I was prePared to give Whyte some slack until I saw him play his hand. At least now in administration we might get some clarity. However, I am very uneasy about the non-payment of taxes that we don't, on the face of it, actually have any problem in paying. We didn't have any problems paying them pre-takeover, at least. Then, as bluebell as set out, he has blatantly lied to us. I'm still all over the place in what I think but right now I'm leaning towards Whyte being a charlatan and that we will be better off without him.

There is twitter chatter that SDM is due to speak publicly today. Can we really cope with a moonbeam intervention?

I don't think its a coincidence, put it that way.

Those old chestnuts? Jeez!

Agreed. And that was my first thought - i.e. in the hope we can secure European football for next season on the assumption that this game of poker can be resolved before 31 March. To continue the analogy, its like we've gone all in pre-flop with a rag-ace against a pair of kings.

Today has been almost a complete write-off since about 3pm. We knew something like this was coming, but I for one didn't think it was coming quite this quickly. One thing I can't get my head around the fact we've re-signed Daniel Cousin. If we're giving him somewhere between 7.5k and 12.5k per weeek for the next 10 weeks, but end up sacking a bunch of people from the club, that really will be a tough one to swallow. I also am not totally clear on what has changed in the last week or two. Yes I understand that they want to resolve things sooner rather than later, but from a football perspective we had a decent performance at the weekend, albeit against the league's worst time, had a striker coming on board to help put pressure on Celtic, and suddenly we have a glimmer of hope to cling to. That rug has been well and truly pulled from beneath us now.

Perhaps DK was asking some awkward questions.

Indeed he hasn't.

He said the ticketus monies were secured by one of his companies.

No, sorry. I don't know one way or the other. I was speaking hypothetically.

Its not a trival sum, for sure. And I agree some clarity on this and other issues would be welcome. I say playing around the edges because we could get that clarity tomorrow, but then on Monday the tax tribunal outcome is known and the game changes altogether.

All good questions.

Sure, clarity is needed. But we wont have any until the tax tribunal reaches its verdict and until that is known, all of this is just playing around the edges.

Then we're fucked. But I haven't yet seen any tangible evidence that this is his intention.

Fair enough. I don't know one way or the other if that is true. Now that I am thinking about it, the way to get some of Whyte's concerns resolved would be to review the audited accounts. Surely he should be waiting until they come out before making this move?

Bottom line, if Johnson has some evidence of wrongdoing, let him play his hand. I would welcome any further insight he can bring. All he's doing is sniping from the sidelines and playing to the gallery. We can well do without this.

Up to a point. Securing cashflow against future income was common under the previous regime too. Whether it was done to the same scale is another question, but these are exceptionally difficult trading conditions forced upon us due to the lack of bank overdraft, the trading deficit without European income, and the attitudes of our creditors who are imposing much stricter terms and conditions upon us.

I would firstly reply by saying that Whyte has a lot to prove and I am no apologist for him. (not that you were suggesting that, so I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth. And if I understand you correctly, I agree. But the point I was making is that if the Insolvency Service did come in, all Whyte would neeed to do is prove where the money came from which should surelyt be done quite simply. If he has secured fianance in some fashion to one of his companies then that surely confirms its provenance? In the absence of bank finance, Whyte appear to have got creative to secure some cashflow. Seems a fairly pragmatic strategy to me. Otherwise we'd be getting wound up. For me, this is just a circus for AJ to try and pretend he is doing us a favour. Seems some of SDM's ego rubbbed off on him during his altogether brief visits to the Chairman's office when he was in office.

Can we not just pay him whatever we've saved in compo for Mervan?

Whyte just needs to prove that any financing is securitised in some way by one of his companies, as he indicated to Tom English; and it blows this nonsense out of the water, surely? I'll stand corrected if someone knows the ins and outs but this seems to me to be an absolute sham. Its basically a big "I told you so" at a time we do not need it.

This is where perhaps I am a bit more relaxed about Whyte. There is no doubt he has a lot to prove to the support and he needs to share his long term intentions. But all I see is Whyte securing finance for the short term cashflow of the club, and until the outcome of the tax case is known. Seems quite a sensible strategy to me.

Aye but we desperately need someone like Cousin and quick so stop dicking around and get him signed!

We agreed a compromise so that he could continue playing. Must have been a reduced fee.

Sure but what I dont understand the point in doing this, and doing it now! Stable door and bolted, etc etc.