Exclusive: Whyte talks to STV at 6pm

[Bluedell 5,627]

Thought he came across well. Was interested to hear he won't appeal if we lose tax case.

 

I didn't see the interview. Did he really say that?

 

If so, it raises some inetersting points:

 

1. It appears that he welcomes administration. Why else would you not appeal?

 

2. Administration is going to damage the club. I can't believe that someone would not try their hardest not to avoid it.

 

3. Why come out and say it? There's no way he should be doing that as it could prejudice the decision. He should be stickiong to the line that we believe that we will win, so much so that we will appeal if we lose. To say that you aren't going to appeal sends out the wrong signals and suggests that you expect to lose.

 

4. It goes against what was suggested to the RST. How much else of what he said was crap?

[Jim1955 12]

So who brought this to the attention of the bbc and for what motives?

[Bluedell 5,627]

It will have lapsed in 2007, no?

 

Yes. I was just posting it to let people know that they would not be able to see any formal record of it now if what the BBC has alleged is true.

[Frankie 8,562]

I didn't see the interview. Did he really say that?

 

If so, it raises some inetersting points:

 

1. It appears that he welcomes administration. Why else would you not appeal?

 

2. Administration is going to damage the club. I can't believe that someone would not try their hardest not to avoid it.

 

3. Why come out and say it? There's no way he should be doing that as it could prejudice the decision. He should be stickiong to the line that we believe that we will win, so much so that we will appeal if we lose. To say that you aren't going to appeal sends out the wrong signals and suggests that you expect to lose.

 

4. It goes against what was suggested to the RST. How much else of what he said was crap?

 

I think he said he may not appeal.

 

Obviously, that may be the right course of action if, for example, we're ordered to pay £10million instead of £50m...

[Bluedell 5,627]

I think he said he may not appeal.

 

Obviously, that may be the right course of action if, for example, we're ordered to pay £10million instead of £50m...

 

Ah OK. Not appealing should always remain an option of course.

[calscot 0]

I suppose the question is: how do they pre-empt what the documentary says? Have they seen it? Is it not better to wait and see, then have the right of reply on Friday at 6pm? Also would allow the legal eagle's to pore over it to determine what, if anything is actionable.

 

I believe it is normal journalistic protocol to allow the subjects of such programmes a viewing before it is aired. It's also far better journalism if the person is actually offered an interview in the programme.

 

Not allowing a pre-viewing would be sleazy journalism at best.

[Darthter 542]

I believe it is normal journalistic protocol to allow the subjects of such programmes a viewing before it is aired. It's also far better journalism if the person is actually offered an interview in the programme.

 

Not allowing a pre-viewing would be sleazy journalism at best.

 

According to the prog. CW was asked to participate but refused.

[Bluedell 5,627]

I wonder how Lloyds Bank will view the statement from johnston saying that he was threatened by them into accepting CW's offer to take over the Club ?

Banks don't threaten people, do they ?

 

It happens all the time.

[craig 5,199]

BD, what he actually said was that nobody would benefit from an appeal that may take months or years. He didnt say he would NOT appeal, but he certainlyleft it open to that eventuality.

[ian1964 10,724]

BD, what he actually said was that nobody would benefit from an appeal that may take months or years. He didnt say he would NOT appeal, but he certainlyleft it open to that eventuality.

 

That's the way I took it,I think he was meaning he just wanted it all cleared up,hence he said he may not appeal it