The Reqs the facts (from RM)

[chilledbear 16]

Boss posted a succinct appraisal, PM never reduced any debt the bank and their place man did.

 

Didn't take a big bonus for winning anything either.

 

We could go on like this all the time, it's about who you trust most.

[crucible 0]

Yes we could go on like this posting facts, great idea.

[Calgacus 8]

Facts, yes - one Easdale is a convicted Fraudster, the other his co-accused, their liabilities far exceed their apparent assets, BS has shown that he's not up to the job, our CE was so good at his job at Man City that he's not there any more, and they employ the guy that lied for Craig Whyte, useful things facts.

[crucible 0]

Do you mean the CE Wallace that the reqs were also considering, can you flesh out your other concerns, can you enlarge on co-accused and your assets angle.

[bluebear54 0]

All seems a bit pointless to me.

It would appear that RM are attempting to influence the vote amongst fans.

I might be wrong, but at this stage, I think everyone has their mind more or less made up.

[Calgacus 8]

Do you mean the CE Wallace that the reqs were also considering, can you flesh out your other concerns, can you enlarge on co-accused and your assets angle.

 

So you're not concerned at Easdale's a criminal?

[bluepeter 0]

<testily>

 

There's a good reason people use Gersnet and not RM. If anyone wants to read RM posts, could they please log onto RangersMedia?

I note you're a site writer. I don't know if you have had any articles from here posted on RM, but we certainly welcome GersNet articles on the site. We like to have all sides debated.

 

I hope you speak for yourself and not GersNet when you posted this.

[Frankie 8,562]

Busy today with work so quick post to say there's no issue about the article being posted. Discuss the content rather than the source please...

[TheWeissMan 0]

I really can't be bothered going through the whole of this but I state the following just based on this small part of it:

 

1. Our net debt at 30/6/07 was £16.5m, but it was not that when PM joined the club on 20/9/07

2. It was almost 12 weeks since the year end when PM joined the board and not just "a few weeks"

3. PM is quoted as referring about "debt" and not "net debt" so the OP is comparing apples and oranges.

4. From memory (and I stand to be corrected on this) between the year end and PM joining the board we signed McCulloch, Whittaker, Cuellar, Cousin and Naismith and signed some other players on freebies as well. All of this would have an impact on the debt level when PM joined the club.

 

Also just because PM met the new directors, it doesn't mean there was an meaningful engagement.

 

It's another mud-slinging exercise for the sake of it, and and the author yet again shows a lack of objectivity. As I've said before, PM may well have his weaknesses but you aren't going to find out from this.

 

And I'm saying that as someone who voted against his election in the RST poll.

 

1. And neither would Paul Murray know to be fair, however not withstanding that, debts on player assets are not included when calculating Net Debt, something which i know you are aware of Bluedell.

2. I didnt say it was a few weeks from the year end, i said it was a few weeks after they were published. Not that it makes much of a difference to be fair though.

3. If Paul Murray was talking about "debt" then when he quoted £14m as the end figure, what was he quoting there ? Was he leaving out all player debts, HMRC debts, Leases, Finance, Ticketus, 20% of Lloyds loan ?

4. As stated above, these would not greatly impact Net Debt figures and certainly not to the tune of £19m.

[bluepeter 0]

Busy today with work so quick post to say there's no issue about the article being posted. Discuss the content rather than the source please...

Thanks Frankie, appreciate the response.