The nightmare returns?

[buster. 5,194]

1 minute ago, der Berliner said:

I wouldn't go as far as saying that many would actually "welcome him back". It would very much be a decision where heart and head will have a quiet minute or two.

 

We have all seen before what happens when the heart wins in certain, future-changing situations.

Previously it was the "head" that Sir Duped lacked when considering level of exposure/risk regards fiscal decisions.

 

Whatever a supporter may engage, it's essential that those in charge use the head.

 

Between various things, we've made a habit of repeating too many mistakes, this is one to pass on.

[DMAA 3,658]

56 minutes ago, Frankie said:

I think you're missing the point.

 

The last time it wasn't his money to burn and that's why he ended up being forced to sell to Craig Whyte.  Our club almost died as a result.

 

We do need money - lots of it - but surely we have a bit more pride than going back to this selfish liar?

I'm sure I've read that he did put a lot of his personal money into the club over the years which largely enabled 9 in a row, as well as giving us favourable loans.

 

His decision to use EBTs later on brought us down, but at the time he begun using them he wouldn't have known that a retrospective court case by HMRC would damage the club so badly, nor did others who used them. Tax experts showed them a loophole so they exploited it to benefit their companies.

 

My view was just that if it was true he wanted to stop 9 in a row and put money into the club to achieve that, I'd be in favour of it. We all know he'll never have the decision making power he had before and I didn't get from the story that he wanted anything like that.

 

I got from the story that he wanted to use his personal fortune to make a difference to the club on the park. His mistakes left us where we are but for me they were mistakes and he was never a "parasite" like Whyte, Ashley/Green etc. I understand those who could never let him near the club again but when there's the prospect of benefiting the club's fortunes there will always be different opinions.

 

Doesn't appear to be true anyway.

Edited March 8, 2018 by DMAA

[Gaffer 1,665]

7 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I'm sure I've read that he did put a lot of his personal money into the club over the years which largely enabled 9 in a row, as well as giving us favourable loans.

 

His decision to use EBTs later on brought us down, but at the time he begun using them he wouldn't have known that a retrospective court case by HMRC would damage the club so badly, nor did others who used them. Tax experts showed them a loophole so they exploited it to benefit their companies.

 

My view was just that if it was true he wanted to stop 9 in a row and put money into the club to achieve that, I'd be in favour of it. We all know he'll never have the decision making power he had before and I didn't get from the story that he wanted anything like that.

 

I got from the story that he wanted to use his personal fortune to make a difference to the club on the park. His mistakes left us where we are but for me they were mistakes and he was never a "parasite" like Whyte, Ashlley/Green etc. I understand those who could never let him near the club again but when there's the prospect of benefiting the club's fortunes there will always be different opinions.

 

Doesn't appear to be true anyway.

The reason I used that word is because my understanding is that he took ownership of Murray park, etc and then rented them to Rangers at an inflated cost.  If that's not the case, I'll change "parasite" to "selfish, dangerous and reckless scumbag".

Edited March 8, 2018 by Gaffer

[Frankie 8,562]

Murray did put some of his own money into the club but it's not entirely clear how much - not to mention how much he gained from his association with Rangers over the years.

 

Ultimately, the decisions he made as custodian were risky, often over-ambitious and eventually caused more harm than good.  That left him exposed to the bank and let's remember people were outlining his poor ownership well before he moved on in 2011.  To sell to Craig Whyte is also completely unforgivable in my view.  As such, in the same way I'd find it very hard to re-sign someone like Steven Naismith (despite his PR claims of playing for free) I'd find it even less acceptable to accept monies from SDM.

 

[Bluedell 5,626]

22 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

The reason I used that word is because my understanding is that he took ownership of Murray park, etc and then rented them to Rangers at an inflated cost.  If that's not the case, I'll change "parasite" to "selfish, dangerous and reckless scumbag".

No, he didn't take ownership of Murray Park.

 

He did transfer ownership of the Albion, IIRC, and the club were paid what seemed like the market rate. There was nothing to suggest that the rental payable was over the top. Again, when the club bought it back, the amount didn't seem unreasonable.

 

It's been a while since I looked at it but that's to the best of my recollection.

[Bluedell 5,626]

31 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I'm sure I've read that he did put a lot of his personal money into the club over the years which largely enabled 9 in a row, as well as giving us favourable loans.

 

 

Murray put no cash into the club during NIAR and I have no recollection of any sort of loans.

 

He did put cash into the club on 2 occasions. He put in some at the same time as Dave King and also put in cash to help clear the debt that he had allowed to run up around 2004/05.

[Bluedell 5,626]

1 hour ago, DMAA said:

Now that his fortunes have turned and he's apparently got money to burn again this may be him looking for a way to win the fans back by stopping Celtic's 9 in a row.

 

I doubt that Murray has much money to burn. He may be fairly wealthy but most of that wealth will be tied up in the shares of the companies that he owns. Rangers need cash, and I doubt Murray has a spare £10m lying around.

[Uilleam 5,939]

I don't want him back. 

 

If he has money to burn, let him invest in Ayr United, his original target, remember.

 

If he really misses the roar of the crowd, let him invest in the Ayr Gaiety theatre, where he could savour the smell of the greasepaint, as well.

[buster. 5,194]

45 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I'm sure I've read that he did put a lot of his personal money into the club over the years which largely enabled 9 in a row, as well as giving us favourable loans.

 

His decision to use EBTs later on brought us down, but at the time he begun using them he wouldn't have known that a retrospective court case by HMRC would damage the club so badly, nor did others who used them. Tax experts showed them a loophole so they exploited it to benefit their companies.

 

My view was just that if it was true he wanted to stop 9 in a row and put money into the club to achieve that, I'd be in favour of it. We all know he'll never have the decision making power he had before and I didn't get from the story that he wanted anything like that.

 

I got from the story that he wanted to use his personal fortune to make a difference to the club on the park. His mistakes left us where we are but for me they were mistakes and he was never a "parasite" like Whyte, Ashley/Green etc. I understand those who could never let him near the club again but when there's the prospect of benefiting the club's fortunes there will always be different opinions.

 

Doesn't appear to be true anyway.

It was the scale of use that was of high risk.

 

A lot of people gamble and put a coupon on, some bet someone elses house on it (some banks, Sir Duped, etc.).

[DMAA 3,658]

44 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

The reason I used that word is because my understanding is that he took ownership of Murray park, etc and then rented them to Rangers at an inflated cost

I'm conscious there may be a knowledge gap with some of this, I've never heard of this for example and I hope Bluedell is right in that it's not true.

 

42 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Murray did put some of his own money into the club but it's not entirely clear how much - not to mention how much he gained from his association with Rangers over the years.

I was always of the impression he ploughed his own money into the club early on and set us up. He's certainly credited to that effect by the media, even in the piece in question. It doesn't help that we don't have hard facts in front of us.

 

44 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Ultimately, the decisions he made as custodian were risky, often over-ambitious and eventually caused more harm than good

Very true and he has to take the blame for what happened for that reason. He's clearly a gambler and risk taker by nature.

 

44 minutes ago, Frankie said:

To sell to Craig Whyte is also completely unforgivable in my view

Without the full facts I find it hard to go quite as far as unforgivable. Nobody would have suspected Whyte's motives. Why on earth would anyone want to put Rangers into liquidation. He seems to have been tricked and given the benefit of the doubt when he shouldn't have done so. However he seems to have done that out of desperatation. For me deliberate actions are unforgiveable but mistakes aren't. Whyte, Green and his cohorts and Ashley can never be forgiven for me.