stewarty 2,060 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 He wants to the Insolvency Service to confirm what Craig Whyte refuses to confirm and in the process prevent Whyte from raping, pillaging and then killing the club. The Insolvency Service have the power to get the court to appoint suitable persons to run the club. It may well be too late to avoid administration but not too late to avoid liquidation. 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 There is definitely a coup de ta underway. IF Alistair Johnson is right and Whyte used mortgaged season ticket money to finance the takeover it means that Whyte flat out lied to us and the rest of the world. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 He wants to the Insolvency Service to confirm what Craig Whyte refuses to confirm and in the process prevent Whyte from raping, pillaging and then killing the club. The Insolvency Service have the power to get the court to appoint suitable persons to run the club. It may well be too late to avoid administration but not too late to avoid liquidation. I wonder who he has in mind as a suitable person? Don't the Insolvency Service also go in and save what they can while getting shot of what they deem unnecessary? Would that be half the first team and Murray Park. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,060 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Is he not asking the IS if Whyte is fit for purpose as well never mind if he has the money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I wonder who he has in mind as a suitable person? Don't the Insolvency Service also go in and save what they can while getting shot of what they deem unnecessary? Would that be half the first team and Murray Park. That would be for the courts to decide Alastair Johnston would have absolutely no input to that decision whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 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? Even if he proved that the ticket deal was secured by one of his companies rather than Club assets, would it not still be a tad alarming if he used flogged-off RFC fans ticket money to buy the club? Or am I missing something here? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Is he not asking the IS if Whyte is fit for purpose as well never mind if he has the money. No he's telling the world in fifty feet high flashing neon letters that he's unfit for the purpose, kind of like Registrar Simmonds did in his judgement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metlika 0 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I thought there was a fit and proper test to be done after the Portsmouth/Man City/Birmingham situations, although Portsmouth is happening again. The later 2 are to do with the owners tax issues rather than insolvency. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 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. No Whyte needs to show the provenance of the monies from where they left Ticketus to where they are now. 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.