-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deansy
All theses pages, all these charges/accusations/offences etc and I'm still waiting on SDM to get a mention ??
It always amazes me how lightly he gets off in the eyes of "the hordes".
He was the architect of their demise. He designed every aspect of it, set it up to go pop then got a patsy in (Whyte) for them all to blame when it happened. I read an article a while back that made a good case for Whyte actually being the good guy in the eyes of the Rangers fans - if he hadn't used the tax as working capital then they might have been liquidated mid-season which would have been far harder for them to re-emerge from. Doing this he kept a busted flush going until the summer and managed to keep a club alive (or undead might be more accurate).
I don't think they can/will move on as a club until the fans realise that SDM was the figure to blame more than anyone. Yes they've had a succession of crooks and misfits since then but that's what you get when you carry on the way they did for so long that the club is untouchable by anyone with any integrity/ common sense/ intelligence/ clean money.
Only when they distance themselves from the idiotic grandeur of his era will they be able to progress as a club again.
Which is nice because I don't see it happening any time soon.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CropleyWasGod
If you mean Hibs.net, you haven't been reading properly :)
I, and many others, have referred to him often. I said just the other day that his evidence about the Ticketus fraud will be "interesting ".
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I often think that "Interesting" is an interesting word to use :greengrin. He claimed he had been "duped" by CW, I don't believe a word of that. He was desperate to dump the club and would probably have sold to anyone, maybe regardless of any advice as to the financial/moral strength of said "anyone"?
I can't see those in the dock protecting SDM's skin if it would benefit them, SDM might well be panicking as to any "smoking guns" that will come out?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ACLeith
I often think that "Interesting" is an interesting word to use :greengrin. He claimed he had been "duped" by CW, I don't believe a word of that. He was desperate to dump the club and would probably have sold to anyone, maybe regardless of any advice as to the financial/moral strength of said "anyone"?
I can't see those in the dock protecting SDM's skin if it would benefit them, SDM might well be panicking as to any "smoking guns" that will come out?
Exactly and money laundering laws will be of interest to the only party that had their debts paid in full. Lloyds due diligence was also asleep at the wheel and they were in the board room of SDM's sinking ship by then too. Lloyds will likely also be called.
-
A hun at my work assures me that they are in a better financial state now than at anytime in the last 25 years. Reckons that there are investors just queing up to hand over their cash. They are the most gullible, delude bunch I have ever come across
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ACLeith
I often think that "Interesting" is an interesting word to use :greengrin. He claimed he had been "duped" by CW, I don't believe a word of that. He was desperate to dump the club and would probably have sold to anyone, maybe regardless of any advice as to the financial/moral strength of said "anyone"?
I can't see those in the dock protecting SDM's skin if it would benefit them, SDM might well be panicking as to any "smoking guns" that will come out?
I said it at the time the Ticketus story broke. I can't believe that an experienced businessman like SDM wouldn't have at least suspected what CW was up to. Whether he was party to it is a different story. .....like you say, the defendants' lawyers will not baulk at suggesting it, though.
Yeah, that's interesting [emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CropleyWasGod
I said it at the time the Ticketus story broke. I can't believe that an experienced businessman like SDM wouldn't have at least suspected what CW was up to. Whether he was party to it is a different story. .....like you say, the defendants' lawyers will not baulk at suggesting it, though.
Yeah, that's interesting [emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
There are so many guilty people complicit in this tale of immorality, greed, cover up, duplicity and all the other shocking events which indeed did begin with SDM's spending other peoples money like water. Amongst the guilty are the Scottish Media who masquerade as 'Journalists' and have hidden the truth along with the SFA. How on earth are Doncaster and Regan still in a job at the SFA when all this criminality was taken place under their noses and they were embarking on the now humiliated joke 5 way agreement to hide what was really going on.
Scotland could be a great country but there are far too many corrupt people working at the top level in every field. Just horrible.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Smartie
It always amazes me how lightly he gets off in the eyes of "the hordes".
He was the architect of their demise. He designed every aspect of it, set it up to go pop then got a patsy in (Whyte) for them all to blame when it happened. I read an article a while back that made a good case for Whyte actually being the good guy in the eyes of the Rangers fans - if he hadn't used the tax as working capital then they might have been liquidated mid-season which would have been far harder for them to re-emerge from. Doing this he kept a busted flush going until the summer and managed to keep a club alive (or undead might be more accurate).
I don't think they can/will move on as a club until the fans realise that SDM was the figure to blame more than anyone. Yes they've had a succession of crooks and misfits since then but that's what you get when you carry on the way they did for so long that the club is untouchable by anyone with any integrity/ common sense/ intelligence/ clean money.
Only when they distance themselves from the idiotic grandeur of his era will they be able to progress as a club again.
Which is nice because I don't see it happening any time soon.
The big difference is SDM operated within the law. He may of done things that looked dodgy but not against the Law.
Their is the single biggest difference. I would wager you will not see SDM involved in this at all.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
-
SDM would argue that oldco Rangers were only worth a £1 at the time of selling to CW due to the BTC which ended his involvement. The vast majority of people would probably reach the view that he must have known that CW had a long history of forcing companies into firstly administration then liquidation as even just a cursory background check of CW would have shown. CW was a neccesity for SDM which later led to the corrupt 5 way agreement which paved the way for the argument that newco was still oldco and so forth. It was well planned with the co-operation of many including Judges, SFA, Scottish Media etc who wanted people to believe that oldco and newco were one and the same. We now know that Sevco 5088 bought the assets and later renamed a new company TIRFC which should dispel any notion of oldco and newco being the same but there are plenty out there who will wash over any notion of what is the truth.
I am sure if oldco Rangers had died in a dignified manner and the newco Rangers had risen to the fore again without all the joke antics of pretending to still be oldco/newco, the fans of all other clubs would have admired them for it and not been so angry at being taken for a bunch of stupid mugs who'll believe anything by the SFA and others. Others in particular being for me the Scottish Media who I suspect have lost the respect of a vast number of people who now get the truth from other grassroot fans who bravely speak out on the internet at the cost of being trolled and abused by people who are happy at the truth being quashed. Also I am sure there are many good and honest Rangers fans who would have welcomed the fresh start instead of the shenanigans of oldco/newco.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenworld
The big difference is SDM operated within the law. He may of done things that looked dodgy but not against the Law.
Their is the single biggest difference. I would wager you will not see SDM involved in this at all.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
He'll be called as a witness in the CW case, Shirley?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CropleyWasGod
He'll be called as a witness in the CW case, Shirley?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
That may well be true but I would expect all documentation to have already been shown to our pc ...plod... they have visited his office several times at charlotte square it may not be deemed necessary ...
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
doddsy
SDM would argue that oldco Rangers were only worth a £1 at the time of selling to CW due to the BTC which ended his involvement. The vast majority of people would probably reach the view that he must have known that CW had a long history of forcing companies into firstly administration then liquidation as even just a cursory background check of CW would have shown. CW was a neccesity for SDM which later led to the corrupt 5 way agreement which paved the way for the argument that newco was still oldco and so forth. It was well planned with the co-operation of many including Judges, SFA, Scottish Media etc who wanted people to believe that oldco and newco were one and the same. We now know that Sevco 5088 bought the assets and later renamed a new company TIRFC which should dispel any notion of oldco and newco being the same but there are plenty out there who will wash over any notion of what is the truth.
I am sure if oldco Rangers had died in a dignified manner and the newco Rangers had risen to the fore again without all the joke antics of pretending to still be oldco/newco, the fans of all other clubs would have admired them for it and not been so angry at being taken for a bunch of stupid mugs who'll believe anything by the SFA and others. Others in particular being for me the Scottish Media who I suspect have lost the respect of a vast number of people who now get the truth from other grassroot fans who bravely speak out on the internet at the cost of being trolled and abused by people who are happy at the truth being quashed. Also I am sure there are many good and honest Rangers fans who would have welcomed the fresh start instead of the shenanigans of oldco/newco.
In a nutshell :aok:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
doddsy
SDM would argue that oldco Rangers were only worth a £1 at the time of selling to CW due to the BTC which ended his involvement. The vast majority of people would probably reach the view that he must have known that CW had a long history of forcing companies into firstly administration then liquidation as even just a cursory background check of CW would have shown. CW was a neccesity for SDM which later led to the corrupt 5 way agreement which paved the way for the argument that newco was still oldco and so forth. It was well planned with the co-operation of many including Judges, SFA, Scottish Media etc who wanted people to believe that oldco and newco were one and the same. We now know that Sevco 5088 bought the assets and later renamed a new company TIRFC which should dispel any notion of oldco and newco being the same but there are plenty out there who will wash over any notion of what is the truth.
I am sure if oldco Rangers had died in a dignified manner and the newco Rangers had risen to the fore again without all the joke antics of pretending to still be oldco/newco, the fans of all other clubs would have admired them for it and not been so angry at being taken for a bunch of stupid mugs who'll believe anything by the SFA and others. Others in particular being for me the Scottish Media who I suspect have lost the respect of a vast number of people who now get the truth from other grassroot fans who bravely speak out on the internet at the cost of being trolled and abused by people who are happy at the truth being quashed. Also I am sure there are many good and honest Rangers fans who would have welcomed the fresh start instead of the shenanigans of oldco/newco.
This should be circulated worldwide.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenworld
The big difference is SDM operated within the law. He may of done things that looked dodgy but not against the Law.
Their is the single biggest difference. I would wager you will not see SDM involved in this at all.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
Was the non-disclosure of contract info to the SFA not done under SDM? Not against the law, but it was the activity which was against football regulations and which should lead to title-stripping, which is obviously one of the horde's biggest fears.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CropleyWasGod
I said it at the time the Ticketus story broke. I can't believe that an experienced businessman like SDM wouldn't have at least suspected what CW was up to. Whether he was party to it is a different story. .....like you say, the defendants' lawyers will not baulk at suggesting it, though.
Yeah, that's interesting [emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Maybe someone should ask the question Who suggested to Whyte that he could use the season ticket money to fund the takeover? That might be interesting
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenworld
That may well be true but I would expect all documentation to have already been shown to our pc ...plod... they have visited his office several times at charlotte square it may not be deemed necessary ...
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
That's the prosecution side, though. CW's defence will see it through a different lens.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
-
Rangers First (their equivalent of HSL but without a share purchase agreement) are to have a vote on whether to give the club an interest free unsecured loan of £500,000.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ozyhibby
Rangers First (their equivalent of HSL but without a share purchase agreement) are to have a vote on whether to give the club an interest free unsecured loan of £500,000.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At first glance this reads like a not to be missed opportunity to hand over a wedge of cash in return for fresh air in the same way the yam gave Vlad the money that went east in a suitcase when he was telling them all about share options.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CropleyWasGod
That's the prosecution side, though. CW's defence will see it through a different lens.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Thats very true or they wish to steer clear of someone who could maybe blow whatever defensive line they choose to go down.
I cant wait till it all kicks off
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenworld
Thats very true or they wish to steer clear of someone who could maybe blow whatever defensive line they choose to go down.
I cant wait till it all kicks off
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
I might have missed it, but when do all those indictments actually come to court?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ozyhibby
Rangers First (their equivalent of HSL but without a share purchase agreement) are to have a vote on whether to give the club an interest free unsecured loan of £500,000.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds desperate stuff I like it
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bostonhibby
At first glance this reads like a not to be missed opportunity to hand over a wedge of cash in return for fresh air in the same way the yam gave Vlad the money that went east in a suitcase when he was telling them all about share options.
On the other hand. ....and this is the way it will be sold....it could keep the lights on until ST sales kick in.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CropleyWasGod
On the other hand. ....and this is the way it will be sold....it could keep the lights on until ST sales kick in.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Think you are right but the cynics might say that why would they need to pretend to have a share issue to con the orcs out of such a small sum when the owner has "off the radar wealth" to "over invest":faf:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bostonhibby
Think you are right but the cynics might say that why would they need to pretend to have a share issue to con the orcs out of such a small sum when the owner has "off the radar wealth" to "over invest":faf:
They are not even kidding on its a share issue. It's a straight handover of cash.
I can understand why they are doing it but they should be asking for something in return. A seat on the board maybe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ozyhibby
They are not even kidding on its a share issue. It's a straight handover of cash.
I can understand why they are doing it but they should be asking for something in return. A seat on the board maybe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:agree: given what might have been the fans original aspiration it looks like they are being asked to fill a hole because the owner & board either can't or won't. Where's that nice Mike Ashley when they need him?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bostonhibby
Think you are right but the cynics might say that why would they need to pretend to have a share issue to con the orcs out of such a small sum when the owner has "off the radar wealth" to "over invest":faf:
you know the comment in bold should come back to haunt that rag and their pal fat boab! They should be up on charges as well as they were knowingly conspiring to defraud Rangers fans! Complicit in all the fraudulent activities done by old, old and newco from 1999!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrSmith
you know the comment in bold should come back to haunt that rag and their pal fat boab! They should be up on charges as well as they were knowingly conspiring to defraud Rangers fans! Complicit in all the fraudulent activities done by old, old and newco from 1999!
:agree: especially as there are fans of the rangers who do believe what their media tells them. No a bad way to plant an idea in their tiny wee brains and get to blame someone else when it all goes pear shaped.
-
JJ on transfers and gifts
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brunswickbill
I must admit he made me laugh out loud when he referred to "The Minister of Pishery, Mangetout Traynor at Level 5".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CropleyWasGod
If you mean Hibs.net, you haven't been reading properly :)
I, and many others, have referred to him often. I said just the other day that his evidence about the Ticketus fraud will be "interesting ".
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Oh I know he's been mentioned on here, CWG, I was merely asking a general question WHY it hasn't appeared in the SMSM ........ (Yeah, I know !!) but seriously, now it's all fast approaching the court where (please, don't laugh again !!) allegedly, the TRUTH is meant to come out, his name STILL doesn't appear anywhere ??. Obviously I know the SMSM have no intention of mentioning him but can a judge ?. Is there any chance a judge (at any of these various trials) can stand up and say - 'Mr Murray, the catalyst for ALL of this, knighted for services to business, expects us to accept his 'I was duped' excuse - I DON'T - do not insult my intelligence like others have had theirs !!'
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ozyhibby
Rangers First (their equivalent of HSL but without a share purchase agreement) are to have a vote on whether to give the club an interest free unsecured loan of £500,000.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You've got to hand it to DK.
First he's on the board of Oldco when they pursue an EBT scheme that ultimately brings down the company.
He then criticises Newco for being cheap.
He then promises 'over-investment' if he's in charge and pushes a genuine billionaire out of the way.
He promises the highest standards of transparency.
He then puts in no cash and no transparency.
He angrily refuses to accept any challenge to their 'history', despite accepting previously that said EBT scheme probably did give Oldco an unfair advantage.
Despite all this, the fans are now considering sending him a £500k 'loan' - money which will never be seen again.
Incredible, really.
