RST statement on BBCprogramme.

[forlanssister 3,114]

BBC allegations against Duff & Phelps

 

 

 

These are extremely serious allegations, and taken at face value, raise serious doubts concerning Duff & Phelpsâ?? independence in the administration process. Roger Isaacs from the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales has claimed this is one of the starkest conflicts of interests he has ever seen means this now needs urgent investigation and the Rangers Supportersâ?? Trust will be writing to the appropriate agencies requesting a full investigation of Duff and Phelpsâ?? role.

 

"The number one priority must still remain Rangers exit administration under new ownership and any action against Duff and Phelps should not destabilize this process.

 

â??However, Duff & Phelps need to be independently investigated by the appropriate professional and regulatory bodies. The evidence presented so far suggests that Craig Whyte, Collyer Bristow and representatives of Duff & Phelps were possibly involved in constructing a financial arrangement that is potentially illegal and has done irreparable damage to Rangers FC - no stone should be left unturned in the investigation."

[Max Rebo's Big Blue Nose 0]

Let's face it, there have been too many questions about these guys since day one. The fact that we discovered that Whyte walked down Edmiston Road and through the front door of Ibrox with a D&P employee should have sent off alarm bells when D & P were sanctioned to be administrators

[calscot 0]

Don't like the way that the RST are taking the BBC Scotland report at face value. Maybe it's because it suits their agenda.

 

They should be more objective and cautious when it comes to stuff like this especially from those that look to have an agenda against our club.

[Bears 0]

Surely the BBC's lawyers would have went right through the report checking all sources etc before they showed this? They'll know this is a very touchy subject which has grabbed Scottish headlines since Jan time, they know there are fans out there that are a lot smarter than two Bob journos, so there has to be a bit of truth in here?

 

I am NOT apologising for the BBC for the record, i have no time for them for a lot of reason. I have always tried to look at things from both sides of the fence when something like this comes out

[Max Rebo's Big Blue Nose 0]

Don't like the way that the RST are taking the BBC Scotland report at face value. Maybe it's because it suits their agenda.

 

They should be more objective and cautious when it comes to stuff like this especially from those that look to have an agenda against our club.

 

If even if we don't take everyhting on at face value, you have to admiot there are too many loose ends and strange coincidences regarding the takeover, Ticketus and the whole admin process in general

[der Berliner 3,744]

IMHO, the problem is that while they do indeed find some lose ends here and there, they present it as if they know the answers and/or how things have really been ... which they don't. As such, they pull another leg from the fragile takeover business and this, on the whole, ain't good for the club and may lead to serious consequences for Rangers. And after all went down the drain, this lot will hold their hands up, present a smug smile, and say: "We only done our job ..."

[the gunslinger 3,366]

good statement and I agree wholeheartedly.

[Danny 0]

Don't like the way that the RST are taking the BBC Scotland report at face value. Maybe it's because it suits their agenda.

 

They should be more objective and cautious when it comes to stuff like this especially from those that look to have an agenda against our club.

 

Indeed. One might think there's a political reason at play as to why they've taken a particular side. Perhaps...erm...the rejection of the Blue Knights bid?

[stewarty 2,025]

There may be other reasons for the RST taking this approach but the basis of what their statement says, is valid. There are significant question marks about the independence of D&P and there is a serious allegation of conflicted interests here which could have significant consequences. On that basis, to call for this to be investigated seems perfectly valid.

 

Should D&P be found not to be conflicted then fine. But until this is determined formally, the questions will remain.