forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Highly unlikely, but is'nt everthing/one? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6818968/Greedy-accountant-stole-110000-from-employer-after-pay-dispute.html 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6818968/Greedy-accountant-stole-110000-from-employer-after-pay-dispute.html Mate you're grasping at straws. For every bad apples there's a million good. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6818968/Greedy-accountant-stole-110000-from-employer-after-pay-dispute.html What I find interesting about this, more than the crime perpetrated, is that wherever I have read in the press about ticketus and the deals they have done the media have mentioned Leeds & Newcastle.... but no mention of Man U. Isnt it somewhat ironic that both Leeds & Newcastle have had monetary issues whilst Man U (although laden with debt) seem to be a stable franchise and far more high-profile than the other two. Why did the media feel the need to exclude reference to Man U when they did a 34 million quid deal with Ticketus too ? Ahhhh, their deal doesnt sell a story quite like the one of two financially troubled clubs... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I don't agree. The Chairman confirmed the borrowing was over a three-year period and was secured against one of his companies and not Rangers Football Club. You don't need financial knowledge to ask which company. It is the questions people will not answer that are the most interesting. As I said all so civilized. I think you're missing the point that the chairman would not meet with the fans group UNLESS it was civilised. If you want anything you can publish and want future dialogue it's in your interests to stay civilised. There are questions he just won't answer and getting shirty with him isn't going to change that and will likely end the meeting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I don't agree. The Chairman confirmed the borrowing was over a three-year period and was secured against one of his companies and not Rangers Football Club. You don't need financial knowledge to ask which company. It is the questions people will not answer that are the most interesting. As I said all so civilized. Agreed, that's a reasonable question. It may have been asked. If CW said that he was unwilling to say and didn't want that question minuted, what do you suggest that they do? Do they go ahead and let everyone know that and say goodbye to any future access with whyte, on a point that would be great to know but the fact that he is refusing to say really doesn't help us either way? You can say it's civilised but I'm sure that there were certain things that they would insist are included in the minutes, but that, if it was asked and not answered, is not a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. It's just a set of minutes. They are hardly likely to say on paper that Whyte looked most harrassed by the end of the questioning. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yes, I understand the consequences of departing from the approved minutes. But let me ask you both, what is the point of meetings, if the same questions and the same answers are produced everytime. These minutes could have come from any of the meetings. Secondly, what would the consequences be for Whyte, if the Assembly gave out a statement to the Supporters, saying there were important questions being asked which the Chairman refuses to answer. If CW then turned round and said no more meetings, how would that go down with the fans. Would he risk it? Perhaps we would get to the truth a lot quicker, but then some might not get a seat in the Directors Box. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yes, I understand the consequences of departing from the approved minutes. But let me ask you both, what is the point of meetings, if the same questions and the same answers are produced everytime. These minutes could have come from any of the meetings. Secondly, what would the consequences be for Whyte, if the Assembly gave out a statement to the Supporters, saying there were important questions being asked which the Chairman refuses to answer. If CW then turned round and said no more meetings, how would that go down with the fans. Would he risk it? Perhaps we would get to the truth a lot quicker, but then some might not get a seat in the Directors Box. Again the dig about the directors' box is probably uncalled for. I'm not aware of any of the assembly delegation getting regular invites in there. I do have some sympathy for your views but the Assembly's raison d'etre is more about representing supporters clubs. The Assembly set up has a lot of flaws and it doesn't represent a lot of fans. As I've said, it appears that the questioning could have been a bit better but the focus given to the four who attended was dictated by the Assembly committee. The most important thing was getting the "assurance" that the cash is in our accounts. If that's true then the other questions are secondary and it doesn't really matter which of his other companies have the security etc. What would be really good is confirmation as to the date that the cash hit our accounts and someone getting sight of the bank statements to prove it, but I doubt he'd agree to that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yes, I understand the consequences of departing from the approved minutes. But let me ask you both, what is the point of meetings, if the same questions and the same answers are produced everytime. These minutes could have come from any of the meetings. I'm presuming that pertinent questions which he chooses to answer are minuted and part of the purpose will be some off the record stuff to give the delegates a feeling of reassurance. Otherwise what is the point of ever meeting anyone? Secondly, what would the consequences be for Whyte, if the Assembly gave out a statement to the Supporters, saying there were important questions being asked which the Chairman refuses to answer. If CW then turned round and said no more meetings, how would that go down with the fans. Would he risk it? These delegates actually only represent a tiny fraction of the fans, and some of them are not held in high regard by many fans they don't represent. I think Whyte could easily choose not to meet with them and explain it away due to them being jumped up militants. He has no more obligation to meet with these people than if anyone on here asked to meet him in the form of representing Gersnet. Would he risk not meeting with a Gersnet delegate? I have no doubt he would. Perhaps we would get to the truth a lot quicker, but then some might not get a seat in the Directors Box. There are certain people whom I am sure will play ball to get a bit of special treatment... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 If he won't tell the truth in court little chance of him being truthful with the fans. 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.