Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

In helping to prove any link could the board members in attendance be called as witnesses? From the OP the timeline suggests Muir and possibly that board meeting was the catalyst for Whyte's way in.

 

If I was Muir and being hit with that I'd just say that part of my job was to fully understand all financial matters and the questions were only in respect of that. Whilst you and I may not believe that, I have a feeling that any court of law would find any link tenuous unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The minutes in themselves wouldn't prove anything (and probably would not record anything damning anyway). It could only be used once a link between Muir and Whyte was clearly established.

 

PS took me a while to understand what the OP was meaning. Had to reread it several times to get the timeline right and realise what Ticketus cash and what Jelavic transfer was being referred to :D

 

was their not a connection between muir and grier

 

So who does Paul Murray feel has questions to answer over what happened to the club?

 

"I think Donald Muir's role needs to be fully examined, I've spent a good deal of time with BDO and I am really challenging them to have a full investigation of everyone's actions, including my own. I think Donald Muir's conduct has to be looked at quite closely, in particular his relationship with David Grier.

 

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/204-paul-murray-the-rangers-standard-interview-part-2

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the trouble is someone at ticketus or ticketus were on huge commission and wanted the deal to go through as much as whyte. i remember reading 1 million commission every time we borrowed 9 and we did that 4 times.

 

That Ticketus deal is the fulcrum to all of this.

 

I can't believe for one second no one at Ticketus contacted the out going board to ask if they were aware that whyte was seeking funding from them before he'd even acquired the club.

 

This wasn't the previous smaller amounts of 4/5 M to see the season through it was 24Million.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Ticketus deal is the fulcrum to all of this.

 

I can't believe for one second no one at Ticketus contacted the out going board to ask if they were aware that whyte was seeking funding from them before he'd even acquired the club.

 

This wasn't the previous smaller amounts of 4/5 M to see the season through it was 24Million.

 

A lot of these type of deals are done with the utmost confidentiality and it could be that Whyte insisted on it.

 

I believe that Ticketus knew exactly what they were doing and knew that they were supplying the cash that Whyte had committed to paying himself and therefore it was in their interests not to let anyone in the previous board know about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Ticketus deal is the fulcrum to all of this.

 

I can't believe for one second no one at Ticketus contacted the out going board to ask if they were aware that whyte was seeking funding from them before he'd even acquired the club.

 

This wasn't the previous smaller amounts of 4/5 M to see the season through it was 24Million.

 

Indeed, they had bought future ST's before but for set amounts and for the following season.

 

Alarm bells had to be ringing that a) They weren't dealing with who they usually dealt with in previous transactions b) The scale of the amount being sold c) that it was for the following season and beyond.

 

There's no chance in hell they never sought assurances from people within the board, none! and I suspect if it had been P. Murray, King, Johnston, Bain, McClelland or Grieg that the deal would have taken until late November 2011 until the support learned of the deal via the pres

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was Muir and being hit with that I'd just say that part of my job was to fully understand all financial matters and the questions were only in respect of that. Whilst you and I may not believe that, I have a feeling that any court of law would find any link tenuous unfortunately.

 

Yes, a picture is being painted rather than a case for the prosecution being prepared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.