GovanAllan 0 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The legality or otherwise has yet to be proven. MD on Scotland Tonight was certainly implying that it was illegal but I'm not sure that anyone with expertise has given an opinion with any authority. I don't believe it's the same as the Liverpool and Man Utd situations as I don't believe that the future income of the club was actually used to buy the club, but I'm not an expert in either of them. Neil Patey on Scotland Tonight was actually the only one on there actually qualified to talk about our problems so when he says it's not illegal I tend to believe him, that aside I'm still raging at the way the deal was done. Liverpool and Man U were bought using money heavily borrowed against both clubs which is just as bad if not worse than CW funny how neither of those two clubs has come under the same scrutiny. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Neil Patey on Scotland Tonight was actually the only one on there actually qualified to talk about our problems so when he says it's not illegal I tend to believe him, that aside I'm still raging at the way the deal was done. I wasn't that impressed by him. He seemed to have a lot of general knowledge but didn't seem to have the level of detailed knowledge about what's going on as I would have expected. I'm sure he's good at the high level stuff but if he really knew for sure that there was nothing wrong with what Whyte did then i would ahev expected a lot more flesh on the bones. His opinions seemed to be mainly based on supported his opinions from the previous time he was on, where he was making judgements based on a lot less information. He has already claimed that our accounts contained nothing surprising and a few other things that that haven't been totally accurate. I didn't put a great deal of stock on his replies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,815 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 What assumptions? Whyte has admitted that he paid off the bank loan using our future season ticket money. The administrators have confirmed that Whyte paid off the bank loan using our future season ticket money. The fact that you put the outrage that a majority of supporters are feeling down to hysteria whipped up by the media is actually quite insulting. There is no black & white here, both with Whyte as with the hysteria of the fans. We have been fed with facts, half-facts, assumptions, hearsay and lies from day one of this. Most of it came from a media with a clear agenda. Now that some of Whyte's doings have been revealed, quite a number of people went over the edge. In the cold light of day, and not defending any of his previous "lies", what he did is buy back the club from Lloyds with "our money". So what? Essentially, he turned the bank debt into a "three-season loan" that will most likely get paid back with season ticket and normal ticket money. If he made sure that during this spell the ticket prices do not see an increase, we get the club debt free in three years' time, unless someone jumps in with some money and buys the deal from Ticketus (why would anyone do this?). Had Lloyds kept the debt and we had continued e.g. AJ's or Murray's plans, we would probably carried the debt on for far longer, unless we would have thrown any outgoing transfer money and CL income (if any) at them. On another note, had Lloyds pulled the plug ... with the incoming tax bill in sight, does anyone think the Bears would have grouped together and whipped up that money? I would not like to guess the answer here. While we are at it ... if he indeed used the Ticketus money to cover the Lloyds debt / take-over, how did he manage to cover the running costs since then? Anyone hazard a guess? On another note, something which apparently was ignored by the incensed folk, he actually said something about the unpaid 9m, what it included and that we/he actually offered to pay it back. No mention about this so far. Though I hazard a guess that people simply do not believe him here ... because he lied once or twice. Well, well ... black and white. There are so many open ends here and a few more are added any day. While I can understand why Whyte has done what he did, I sure do not condone it. The question remains whether it was necessary to save the club or whether there were other means to sustain the debt and keep it running, with the HMRC stuff looming large? And finally ... what is in for Whyte here. Anyone get some hard facts what he would get from getting us into admin et al? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I wasn't that impressed by him. He seemed to have a lot of general knowledge but didn't seem to have the level of detailed knowledge about what's going on as I would have expected. I'm sure he's good at the high level stuff but if he really knew for sure that there was nothing wrong with what Whyte did then i would ahev expected a lot more flesh on the bones. His opinions seemed to be mainly based on supported his opinions from the previous time he was on, where he was making judgements based on a lot less information. He has already claimed that our accounts contained nothing surprising and a few other things that that haven't been totally accurate. I didn't put a great deal of stock on his replies. I hear what your saying mate just watch you don't fall into the trap of only hearing what you want to be true instead of the facts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 On another note, something which apparently was ignored by the incensed folk, he actually said something about the unpaid 9m, what it included and that we/he actually offered to pay it back. He's stated that he offered to pay it back....the real question is - Why wasn't it paid in the 1st place??? I don't believe the previous board/setup/regime had any problems paying PAYE & NI, so why all of a sudden did Mr Whyte?? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 While we are at it ... if he indeed used the Ticketus money to cover the Lloyds debt / take-over, how did he manage to cover the running costs since then? Anyone hazard a guess? IF he used the Ticketus money? Why IF? He's admitted it. The administrators have confirmed it. Why are you still questioning it? As for the financing of the club, yes, it wouldn't be too hard for me to sit down and work it out (Ticketus balance, last year's CL cash, some season ticket money, not paying HMRC and other creditors), but what would it prove? As for your dismissal of the press, virtually everything they have printed about Whyte has been proven to be true (despite some over-exaggeration). You can keep dismissing it as hearsay and lies ( although Whyte's lies only seem to be "lies" in inverted commas) but it doesn't change the facts. As for him using our season ticket money, you just dismiss it with a "so what". If that's your attitude to the club's money being used for used for Whyte's personal gain and that it will leave us with even bigger problems in future years then I guess that you probably don't understand the situation or are so blinded by the "Whyte can't do any wrong" position that you aren't looking at the facts rationally. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Neil Patey on Scotland Tonight was actually the only one on there actually qualified to talk about our problems so when he says it's not illegal I tend to believe him, that aside I'm still raging at the way the deal was done. Liverpool and Man U were bought using money heavily borrowed against both clubs which is just as bad if not worse than CW funny how neither of those two clubs has come under the same scrutiny. While your pretty much right here, both teams actually have had their negative publicity about it and the biggest difference is probably that they didn't hide it and lie about it or break any covenants in the deal for buying the clubs. I think the press is a bit more lenient on rogues who are up front about it - mainly because there is no hidden story to reveal and sell papers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 the biggest difference is probably that they didn't hide it and lie about it or break any covenants in the deal for buying the clubs. I think the press is a bit more lenient on rogues who are up front about it - mainly because there is no hidden story to reveal and sell papers. Definitely agree there....If Whyte hadn't constantly denied using the ticket money to fund the takeover, I think folk wouldn't be quite as angry. One important thing though....While Liverpool & Man Utd were purchased using a similar model, neither have been put into administration in less than a year!!! If Whyte had done what he's done, and as a result stabilized the club financially, it would have been seen as a good move by the vast majority of the fans....but that ain't the case unfortunately. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I hear what your saying mate just watch you don't fall into the trap of only hearing what you want to be true instead of the facts. Fair point, mate. However I'd say that I'm judging his performance and his comments from a slightly different persepective from you. He has previously made comments about the amounts that Whyte is owed and the administration process that suggest to me that he hasn't sat down and fully analysed the club's situation. He may or may not be right about the legality of the situation (I don't actually recall him specifically saying anything on that) but I just don't think he has come to grips with the intricacies of our specific position and therefore may not be in a position to make a definitive judgement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 So is Whyte's endgame to hold Rangers fans (both super rich and potential small investors) to ransom? He surreptitiously buys the club with its own money puts it in the shit and administration, gets a CVA, is paid and pockets a fraction of his supposed credit and then threatens to liquidate the club unless it is bought from him for an addition market fee - even though he didn't pay more than pound himself? As a triple whammy he siphons off the balance of the ticketus money and a whole lot of other income and assets...? If that is the case the guy is completely evil and will be one of the most notorious Scots in history. Maybe that's when having some nutters in our support could come in handy to dispatch justice. But it's really hard to believe someone could even have the balls to do something like that, never mind the will. Surely that can't be true? 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.