SFA seek answers as Llambias joins Rangers board

[Rangersitis 0]

NO.

 

I am on record as having been against him from the start. I was one of the first to raise the Private Eye article and was toild by many that it was nonsense. I also strongly supported the assessment by the independent members of the Board.

 

What are you on about?

 

My reply wasn't to you, so get back in your box.

[compo 7,097]

rules are there to be bent twisted or just plain ignored probably any court would tell the SFA that as well its in their own good to have a strong rangers and not hinder anyone helping the club .

[Rangersitis 0]

rules are there to be bent twisted or just plain ignored probably any court would tell the SFA that as well its in their own good to have a strong rangers and not hinder anyone helping the club .

 

That's subjective.

[RANGERRAB 3,701]

Surprisingly, he kept it quiet. The BBC uncovered the truth in the October, with Whyte putting his hands up over a month later, after threatening court action. I would put money on you being one of those who was cheering him on from the sidelines against the Bheeb(sic).

 

i can assure I was not 'one of those cheering him on from the sidelines'. A colleague at the place I worked at the time knew all about Whyte's past. When Whyte got Rangers what happened next was inevitable.

The SFA's role in all of this was incomprehensible given the countless warnings they got. Perhaps in was a case of obeying orders

[Rangersitis 0]

i can assure I was not 'one of those cheering him on from the sidelines'. A colleague at the place I worked at the time knew all about Whyte's past. When Whyte got Rangers what happened next was inevitable.

The SFA's role in all of this was incomprehensible given the countless warnings they got. Perhaps in was a case of obeying orders

 

On the side of Mark Daly. Oooh!

 

The main problem was that the SFA had a disclosure policy which was based on bad guys dropping themselves in it by telling the truth. Once Whyte was in, he fought tooth and nail to keep everything covered up.

 

Who were the SFA taking orders from, Rab?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

What are you on about?

 

My reply wasn't to you, so get back in your box.

 

Whoops, I've crept back in and pulled the lid down.

[RANGERRAB 3,701]

On the side of Mark Daly. Oooh!

 

The main problem was that the SFA had a disclosure policy which was based on bad guys dropping themselves in it by telling the truth. Once Whyte was in, he fought tooth and nail to keep everything covered up.

 

Who were the SFA taking orders from, Rab?

 

Didnt keep it covered for too long then did he? PM,AJ etc all warned about Whyte and were proved to be spot on.

Surely even you can see at the SFA these days who calls the shots with the various placemen(and women) there. Letting Whyte get Rangers benefited one club by allowing an easy CL passport every year and the money that brings

[buster. 5,215]

Whoops, I've crept back in and pulled the lid down.

 

Not a good sign when you start to deny 'charges' you haven't been accused of.

 

[Rangersitis 0]

Didnt keep it covered for too long then did he? PM,AJ etc all warned about Whyte and were proved to be spot on.

Surely even you can see at the SFA these days who calls the shots with the various placemen(and women) there. Letting Whyte get Rangers benefited one club by allowing an easy CL passport every year and the money that brings

 

I'm well aware of what AJ & co had to say about him, I even know where I was when the news broke, but it made no difference whatsoever. I also remember the abuse they took for daring to say such a thing. There was a swell of support for 'the saviour', much like there is in certain quarters for our latest billionaire benefactor. If the SFA had blocked Whyte's purchase without providing clear proof of wrongdoing, they would have been pilloried for it.

[RANGERRAB 3,701]

I'm well aware of what AJ & co had to say about him, I even know where I was when the news broke, but it made no difference whatsoever. I also remember the abuse they took for daring to say such a thing. There was a swell of support for 'the saviour', much like there is in certain quarters for our latest billionaire benefactor. If the SFA had blocked Whyte's purchase without providing clear proof of wrongdoing, they would have been pilloried for it.

 

PM compiled a complete dossier on Whyte and was allegedly stunned at his business history. He couldnt believe he was being allowed to acquire RANGERS.

What more evidence did anyone(including the SFA) need to stop Whyte?