Grantly Group ââ?¬â?? insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts

[Bluedell 5,627]

Hey Bluedell, good to speak to you again.

 

I think you're line of thinking is correct. Good and bad information is of course much appreciated to gain a broader picture. What could also be of benefit though is information which is concrete and full in it's content rather than information portrayed as bad which could in fact be irrelevant.

 

You too, mate. Welcome to the site. It's good to have someone putting forward a slightly different viewpoint on this.

 

On your last sentence, the information that was given was concrete and as full as was available AFAIK. There were also some relevant questions asked and the OP came to his own conclusion. I wouldn't come to that conclusion just based on the information provided but some of it is concerning, but admittedly some may be irrelevant, albeit factually true, but the whole thing paints a picture and I'd prefer to have all the information than just some.

[calscot 0]

Most statements are open to interpretation.

 

Did Walter and the other club employees mean that the bank were deciding on what cleaning company cleans the offices? No.

 

Did they mean that the bank had withheld renewal of the banking facility, had a physical prescence in the club, were preventing the club from buying anyone and preventing walter from being offered a new contract. Probably.

 

The bank could point to the first and say that proves they aren't running the club and their statement was truthful. Walter could point to the second and say that it proves his statement was truthful.

 

If you believe Walter was lying and take the bank's statement at face value then that's your right, but I fail to see why people were saying that the bank were in at the club for months before Walter's statement if it wasn't true.

 

The statement Walter made is only truthful by a big stretch of semantics. Just because a bank will not fund you to do what you want, doesn't mean they are running you. My bank probably won't lend me 200k to rebuild my house but that does not mean they are running my household, even if they do lend me my mortgage.

 

If some millionaire donated 20M to Rangers under the condition they could only spend it on buying players and their wages, and the club took it. Does that mean the donor is running the club?

 

The bank are influencing the spending of the club, nothing more - and as interested parties at a time where we rely on their money they have a right to.

 

But saying that means they are running the club is no more than a turn of phrase.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Most statements are open to interpretation.

 

Did Walter and the other club employees mean that the bank were deciding on what cleaning company cleans the offices? No.

 

Did they mean that the bank had withheld renewal of the banking facility, had a physical prescence in the club, were preventing the club from buying anyone and preventing walter from being offered a new contract. Probably.

 

The bank could point to the first and say that proves they aren't running the club and their statement was truthful. Walter could point to the second and say that it proves his statement was truthful.

 

If you believe Walter was lying and take the bank's statement at face value then that's your right, but I fail to see why people were saying that the bank were in at the club for months before Walter's statement if it wasn't true.

 

What I believe is that the bank have not corrected or attempted to correct the statement made by Murray, that he employs Muir and not the bank. Do you have any evidence, apart from people were saying, to contradict Murray's statement, do you have any evidence that Muir a well respected company doctor is a bank nominated employee, if so show it. There appears to be a collective wish, and a wish describes it more succinctly than anything else, that Murray is somehow removed from the process, based on hearsay and I am led to believe the utterances of a sportscaster by the name of King, still whatever sinks your boat.

[Bluedell 5,627]

The statement Walter made is only truthful by a big stretch of semantics. Just because a bank will not fund you to do what you want, doesn't mean they are running you. My bank probably won't lend me 200k to rebuild my house but that does not mean they are running my household, even if they do lend me my mortgage.

 

If some millionaire donated 20M to Rangers under the condition they could only spend it on buying players and their wages, and the club took it. Does that mean the donor is running the club?

 

The bank are influencing the spending of the club, nothing more - and as interested parties at a time where we rely on their money they have a right to.

 

But saying that means they are running the club is no more than a turn of phrase.

 

If the bank actually have people inside the club for over 6 months then it's slightly more than a bank giving you a mortgage.

[Bluedell 5,627]

What I believe is that the bank have not corrected or attempted to correct the statement made by Murray, that he employs Muir and not the bank.

 

Of course they haven't. It's not in their interest to do so.

 

Do you have any evidence, apart from people were saying, to contradict Murray's statement, do you have any evidence that Muir a well respected company doctor is a bank nominated employee, if so show it. There appears to be a collective wish, and a wish describes it more succinctly than anything else, that Murray is somehow removed from the process, based on hearsay and I am led to believe the utterances of a sportscaster by the name of King, still whatever sinks your boat.

 

So you believe Murray and I believe Walter and the other person within the club who told me about the bank in May. Neither of us have any more evidence than the other (and I'm not basing anything on the utterances of Darryl King)....although I'd also argue that circumstantial evidence also backs up my belief.

 

I guess it depends on you believe is the more truthful.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

The statement Walter made is only truthful by a big stretch of semantics. Just because a bank will not fund you to do what you want, doesn't mean they are running you. My bank probably won't lend me 200k to rebuild my house but that does not mean they are running my household, even if they do lend me my mortgage.

 

If some millionaire donated 20M to Rangers under the condition they could only spend it on buying players and their wages, and the club took it. Does that mean the donor is running the club?

 

The bank are influencing the spending of the club, nothing more - and as interested parties at a time where we rely on their money they have a right to.

 

But saying that means they are running the club is no more than a turn of phrase.

 

 

Two good a valid agruements, so if i may dumb it down a little for us less coparate minded, that it's a case of six of one and half a dozen of another. The bank is looking after business ie it's money owed and the finances, and the Rangers employees are taking care of business on the football field and related matters.

[Totti 0]

OK to put it simply, the bank currently exert far more influence on the club than they should be doing.

[wabashcannonball 0]

So there is simply no evidence that the bank has or is running the club. As long as the clubs commitments are met the bank cannot and would not interfere, I take it that there is no evidence that the club has not met its financial obligations, or do we have more hearsay in this department. Evidence would be helpful, but this whole saga is increasingly being exposed as nothing more than gossip.

[Union City Blue 0]

In my opinion, when the bank controls the major decisions within a club (i.e. whether it can buy or needs to sell players, which affects its ability to compete), it is effectively running it by constraining it. When the Chairman says that the business plan which has been imposed is "unsatisfactory" then I reach the same conclusion. Anything else is of B-grade importance in my eyes. The bank needs to get out of the club, that's the first positive thing that can happen.

[craig 5,199]

In my opinion, when the bank controls the major decisions within a club (i.e. whether it can buy or needs to sell players, which affects its ability to compete), it is effectively running it by constraining it. When the Chairman says that the business plan which has been imposed is "unsatisfactory" then I reach the same conclusion. Anything else is of B-grade importance in my eyes. The bank needs to get out of the club, that's the first positive thing that can happen.

 

I would agree with this.

 

Whilst calscot is suggesting that WS made a comment which argued semantics the same could be applied to the reverse.

 

The reality is that in the football world transfers in and out, contracts and wages of playing personnel are what "runs" the club. And given that rumours are aplenty that Boyd, Novo etc have not had contracts renewed as yet or that Davie Weir is playing on a handshake, all of which are due to financial constraints (and we can be pretty sure these are due to the bank's insistence on tightening the belt) then that to me says that Rangers are being run by the bank.

 

Was our wage bill not 75%+ of turnover last year ? How much of the wage bill is contrbutable to the players ? Most of it. So if the bank curtail any of that then that is the vast majority of your business running costs.

 

Re SDM stating that it is he who employs Donald Muir..... I would need to read his actual quote again but it is very plausible that he could be technically correct - could also be just as plausible that the reason he employed Muir is because the bank demanded he do so. Smoke and mirrors is a oft-used SDM tactic, why should we suspect any different now ?