BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 The football bubble will burst, nothing is surer, economics tell us this if we care to look. When it does there will be casualties, the clubs who are stable both fiscally and politically will be the most likely to survive that. So I'd argue it is in our best long term interests to own our club, to have a say in how it is run, to be keeping a watchful eye on things. Remember, no one else cares, nobody else gives a damn about our club, only us. Why entrust it to people who don't share our values or dreams? I am not sure that I can agree with all your politics but I like your conclusion. One can look back to the Darien Scheme, the South Sea Bubble and in more recent times, the Technology Media and Telecommunications (TMT) and sub prime mortgage fiasco, as bubbles that were bound to burst. It does seem almost inevitable that as the rich get richer in football terms and it becomes more difficult for any club outside an increasingly small elite in Spain, Germany and England particularly to win the CL never mind their own leagues, that football's bubble will burst too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 There are very few people who know the facts. We had 2 chartered accountants who agreed that no wrong had been done. I think you are being a trifle disingenuous here Christine. The auditors had a detailed list of things that had been done wrong, one of which was all the cash transactions. There may well have been other CA's involved that I was not aware of; but there was only one on the Board at that time and she had been introduced by Mr Dingwall shortly before the facts of the debt which you had hidden from me came to light. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Have to disagree with you on this BH because while I think Paul Murray has definitely made some mistakes, I do completely trust the judgement of shrewd and successful businessmen like Jim McColl, Dave King and Brian Kennedy who have all endorsed and backed Paul Murray over the past couple of years. Perhaps I should clarify; I was not impugning his integrity, I meant from a financial point of view. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 These threads on any forum always tend to give an example of why our fans won't unite 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Perhaps I should clarify; I was not impugning his integrity, I meant from a financial point of view. That still doesn't make any sense to me. Are we supposed to believe that you and all of his other detractors are actually right about Paul Murray and guys like McColl, King and Kennedy (plus many other businessmen who've backed him) are all wrong? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 and what was the nature of it? because that's important. The debt arose from two cheques issued by Follow Follow for a total of £2,690 which were not paid by FF's bank, as described in my statement. This also gives the lie to the alternative explanation put forward; because if you do not have the money to cover the cheques because other people owe you money and you do not have any other money within your business to cover those cheques; then you know that any cheques you issue will bounce, so why would you issue cheques if you knew they were going to bounce? Once you issue cheques that bounce, you are indebted to the person or business to whom you issued them i.e. RST; even if that is in terms of saving you from having an overdraft to cover the cheques (assuming you could obtain one). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Somewhat ironic that this thread title is followed by one announcing TBO and UB are "dis-uniting" and is in itself another testament to our inability to do so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 sounds like typical accountant voodoo nonsense to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) That still doesn't make any sense to me. Are we supposed to believe that you and all of his other detractors are actually right about Paul Murray and guys like McColl, King and Kennedy (plus many other businessmen who've backed him) are all wrong? I think that McColl at least (I don't know about King) thought he was the acceptable face of the "old guard" and might be a uniting influence. I haven't said anything against him personally, so I'm not sure it is fair to list me as one of his detractors. McColl had the money but didn't wish to invest. Murray apparently had some money to invest but not enough as was seen at the the time of the TBK's. Edited February 3, 2014 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,266 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) [please avoid personal stuff] Frankie Edited February 3, 2014 by Frankie 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.