TheMotor

Oh it's you again the wee negative bastard.
Fuck up.

Sounded Aussie Supposedly and he had two English agents

Aye, cos the expert judgement of our some of our fans should be a key factor in deciding the price.

Aye, cos the expert judgement of our some of our fans should be a key factor in deciding the price.

TBH Stu its getting too much for me , im really getting depressed by what this site is turning into , can see why so many people were being banned from FF , nothing to do with over zealous mods , it is the fact the posters were fucking morons and idiots and now we have them all on this site with their negativity and fucking stupidty amongst other things .
I would be sad to leave this forum as there are some genuine good posters with good viewpoints and the fact i do fuck all at work all day and the BBC website is shite but as the days past i feel more inclined to leave or i spend all day banging my head against the table/wall

Bye pastorjack

If, and it's a big if, we lose the tax case, and get hit with a hefty fine, Craig Whyte will get 1st dibs on his money back.
There won't be much left after that for HMRC, something HMRC will be taking into consideration.
This is why he is confident there won't be any hefty fine imposed.
I've always been of the belief that he won't spend too much money this season anyway due to the settling-in period required when anyone takes on a business the size of Rangers FC, and to take time to plan for the future.
If we don't win the league this coming season, it won't be because of Craig Whyte. It will be due to the fact we have a new Manager. This is how it will be presented to the mhedia and the fans.
I think, and I hope I'm correct, that Craig Whyte will be good for Rangers FC, and he will need time to settle in and plan for the future, which I'm sure won't be any worse than the last 7/8 years under SDM. After, and only after, he has gotten the tax case put to bed will we see and hear more from Craig Whyte himself and hopefully it will be good news all round.
We complain when the mhedia speculate about our club with doomsday stories on an almost daily basis, then some come on here and write exactly the same doomsday pish that we complain about in the mhedia.
It's almost as if we don't trust a guy who has put millions into our club, taken the burden of a potentially hefty fine from HMRC, and has shown till now we don't actually have to sell off our best players.
Give it time, and if he fails to deliver, then is the time to worry and hopefully unite against him. Until he shows he has failed us, we shouldn't be so distrusting of the guy.
FFS We should be enjoying our 3rd consecutive SPL title, our League Cup win against the taigs, the fact we have a new owner who will hopefully take us forward (something that was never going to happen under Murray), a new Manager who's raring to get his teeth into the job, keeping the bulk of our successful squad together, adding a few new players, CL qualifiers followed by (hopefully) CL football, folowed by European football after Christmas...............................................and all we ever hear about on here is how distrusting we are of our new owner.
I don't know about anybody else, but I am sure as fuck enjoying my summer due to all of the above.
SPL fixture list is out the morra followed by the Euro Qualifiers draw, next month we have a wee trip tae Belfast, followed by Blackpool and then the visit of Chelsea. Not tae mention the league gets underway on 23rd July.
Why can't we just be more positive about our club and it's future and Follow Follow on?

he should be pissing in spangles mouth
that infiltraitor has been fucking anon since this news broke today
he'll be reporting back to kerrydale street as we speak telling his string pullers "i failed, they didnt take to my pots and pish story"

Those with most to say have least worth listening to.

So, in summary (admittedly a long-winded one) we appear to have three different camps in this thread:
Camp 1: Pro-Whyte
Key arguments in favour:
1 - Get Lloyds largely out of Ranger's decision making process by clearing all but 4 million of the debt owed.
2 - Get rid of SDM and current board who have overseen slide to current position. Almost any change must be good.
3 - New manager can start planning for season ahead with, alledgedly, increased budget for playing staff and potential for investment in new players of 5 - 10 million, plus any income from sales.
4 - New ownership and new board = new thinking and new growth opportunities.
Evidence to support Whyte bid being the right one:
1 - Media reports that Whyte is worth Billions/hundreds of millions/tens of millions/well, he owns a castle........... Actually, there is almost nothing in the public domain to support any of this. Nobody outside of the deal has a clue what his true resources are.
2 - From what little is leaking out about the deal, it appears that SDM/Lloyds/AJ and the supervisory committee believe that Whyte has adequately proved that he has the funds to purchase the shareholding of SDM and clear the majority of the debt. The closest we have to any sort of confirmation, though, is AJ's statement to the Plus Exchange in which his main gripe is over the lack of a binding commitment in the paperwork at that time in regards to the ongoing funding of the playing squad; he acknowledges that the proposed deal pays off SDM and Lloyds. So Whyte appears to have at least 25 million plus, that some people have seen evidence of.
3 - Media reports that Whyte will invest up to 25 million over 5 years, including 10 million in the first year, in refurbishing the squad. Again there is only circumstantial evidence of this. Both sides seem to be leaking that this is in the deal but not locked down yet, which appears to be a key sticking point and one that the anti-Whyte camp are jumping on (possibly quite rightly).
Main concerns: Why do we know so little about him? What are his real resources? Why does he want to own Rangers and what are his long-term plans?
Camp 2 - Not Sure
Quite possibly a very large part of the fanbase. Fed up with all the negativity around the club and an owner who has long ago lost all interest. Hate to see players being lost due to budgetary reasons (rather than because they are just pish) and disappointed with the lack of quality we are able to bring into the team. Would love to see new owners and new investment but just not sure about Whyte.
The lack of detail about who are new owner is, and what his motives are, is a concern however. Are we getting Murray years 1 - 10, or Murray since? Even worse, are we going to do a Portsmouth?
But who else is out there? P Murray and King? Hmmmmmmm...........
Camp 3 - Anti-Whyte
Key arguments against:
1 - Whyte hasn't got any money. He doesn't even really have the 25 million odd that SDM/Lloyds/AJ appear to think he has. Pre-plumbing toilet apparatus humour used for illustration purposes.
2 - Whyte has previously been declared bankrupt.
3 - Whyte is a conman and thief. Veiled allusions to stealing diggers and a castle roof.
4 - Whyte is an asset-stripper and there is no evidence of any business successes.
5 - Ellis is involved. Ellis is a property developer and therefore evil. Ellis tried buying a club before Rangers and was chased out of town. Eliis also lacks the relevant toilet equipment.
Evidence to support Whyte bid being the wrong one:
1 - Links to other forums where someone has copied tabloid articles showing that Whyte has had court action initiated against him by HMRC and other creditors in the 1990s. Nowhere in these articles, however, to those tabloids state the outcome of those actions. You would expect that if the judgments had gone against Whyte, that would be the headline news, not the initiation of the actions. Especially since the news articles were written years after the disputes.
2 - In one of the same tabloid articles, the issue of Whyte's insolvency is raised in connection to (again) the commencement, not the outcome, of proceedings against him by creditors. The only direct quote is from Whyte himself, saying he has never been declared bankrupt, which is not contradicted.
3 - Of Whyte's "Grand Theft Digger" operations, we have only ever so witty veiled references from forum posters but no evidence. No details of prosecutions, no court reports, no media reports even.
4 - Of Whyte's previous business successes, there truly is very little evidence, if any. This is, to my mind, the strongest argument in the anti-Whyte camp's armoury. Due to the lack of information about his business dealings in the public domain, the only thing we have to go on is the fact that the players on the other side of the deal all seem to be taking him seriously. But this issue should concern all Bears. However, the term "asset-stripper" seems to get used by people who have little understanding of what it means: Rangers really do not have a great many assets worth stripping that could not be much more easily obtained elsewhere for much less work.
5 - Ellis is a strange one and another strong point for the anti-Whyte camp, but possibly not for the reasons they think. I would just question what expertise he brings to the deal for his 25% cut of SDM's shares? He has no great property development track record. Lots of small deals, apparently, but nothing outstanding. He also has a poor record in his attempts to run Northampton Town and QPR, being run out of town pretty quickly in each case. However, it is useful to remember that SDM was also chased by the mighty Ayr United and proved a diabolical failure in his attempts to build a sporting empire out of his MIM franchise teams in basketball and ice-hockey. Also, when it comes to property development, we could not possibly get worse that SDM, unless Whyte plans to sell Ibrox: SDM couldn't develop a roll of film.
I could be way off but I reckon many Bears will have at least one foot in the "Not Sure" camp and are probably moving the other foot towards the "Pro-Whyte" camp as things advance (albeit bloody slowly).
The "Anti-Whyte" camp certainly raise some questions that should be asked but, on this board at least, failing to produce anything solid at all to back their position, and attacking posters with other viewpoints as stupid, just makes them appear petulant and childish, rather than genuinely concerned for Rangers or for debate

So, in summary (admittedly a long-winded one) we appear to have three different camps in this thread:
Camp 1: Pro-Whyte
Key arguments in favour:
1 - Get Lloyds largely out of Ranger's decision making process by clearing all but 4 million of the debt owed.
2 - Get rid of SDM and current board who have overseen slide to current position. Almost any change must be good.
3 - New manager can start planning for season ahead with, alledgedly, increased budget for playing staff and potential for investment in new players of 5 - 10 million, plus any income from sales.
4 - New ownership and new board = new thinking and new growth opportunities.
Evidence to support Whyte bid being the right one:
1 - Media reports that Whyte is worth Billions/hundreds of millions/tens of millions/well, he owns a castle........... Actually, there is almost nothing in the public domain to support any of this. Nobody outside of the deal has a clue what his true resources are.
2 - From what little is leaking out about the deal, it appears that SDM/Lloyds/AJ and the supervisory committee believe that Whyte has adequately proved that he has the funds to purchase the shareholding of SDM and clear the majority of the debt. The closest we have to any sort of confirmation, though, is AJ's statement to the Plus Exchange in which his main gripe is over the lack of a binding commitment in the paperwork at that time in regards to the ongoing funding of the playing squad; he acknowledges that the proposed deal pays off SDM and Lloyds. So Whyte appears to have at least 25 million plus, that some people have seen evidence of.
3 - Media reports that Whyte will invest up to 25 million over 5 years, including 10 million in the first year, in refurbishing the squad. Again there is only circumstantial evidence of this. Both sides seem to be leaking that this is in the deal but not locked down yet, which appears to be a key sticking point and one that the anti-Whyte camp are jumping on (possibly quite rightly).
Main concerns: Why do we know so little about him? What are his real resources? Why does he want to own Rangers and what are his long-term plans?
Camp 2 - Not Sure
Quite possibly a very large part of the fanbase. Fed up with all the negativity around the club and an owner who has long ago lost all interest. Hate to see players being lost due to budgetary reasons (rather than because they are just pish) and disappointed with the lack of quality we are able to bring into the team. Would love to see new owners and new investment but just not sure about Whyte.
The lack of detail about who are new owner is, and what his motives are, is a concern however. Are we getting Murray years 1 - 10, or Murray since? Even worse, are we going to do a Portsmouth?
But who else is out there? P Murray and King? Hmmmmmmm...........
Camp 3 - Anti-Whyte
Key arguments against:
1 - Whyte hasn't got any money. He doesn't even really have the 25 million odd that SDM/Lloyds/AJ appear to think he has. Pre-plumbing toilet apparatus humour used for illustration purposes.
2 - Whyte has previously been declared bankrupt.
3 - Whyte is a conman and thief. Veiled allusions to stealing diggers and a castle roof.
4 - Whyte is an asset-stripper and there is no evidence of any business successes.
5 - Ellis is involved. Ellis is a property developer and therefore evil. Ellis tried buying a club before Rangers and was chased out of town. Eliis also lacks the relevant toilet equipment.
Evidence to support Whyte bid being the wrong one:
1 - Links to other forums where someone has copied tabloid articles showing that Whyte has had court action initiated against him by HMRC and other creditors in the 1990s. Nowhere in these articles, however, to those tabloids state the outcome of those actions. You would expect that if the judgments had gone against Whyte, that would be the headline news, not the initiation of the actions. Especially since the news articles were written years after the disputes.
2 - In one of the same tabloid articles, the issue of Whyte's insolvency is raised in connection to (again) the commencement, not the outcome, of proceedings against him by creditors. The only direct quote is from Whyte himself, saying he has never been declared bankrupt, which is not contradicted.
3 - Of Whyte's "Grand Theft Digger" operations, we have only ever so witty veiled references from forum posters but no evidence. No details of prosecutions, no court reports, no media reports even.
4 - Of Whyte's previous business successes, there truly is very little evidence, if any. This is, to my mind, the strongest argument in the anti-Whyte camp's armoury. Due to the lack of information about his business dealings in the public domain, the only thing we have to go on is the fact that the players on the other side of the deal all seem to be taking him seriously. But this issue should concern all Bears. However, the term "asset-stripper" seems to get used by people who have little understanding of what it means: Rangers really do not have a great many assets worth stripping that could not be much more easily obtained elsewhere for much less work.
5 - Ellis is a strange one and another strong point for the anti-Whyte camp, but possibly not for the reasons they think. I would just question what expertise he brings to the deal for his 25% cut of SDM's shares? He has no great property development track record. Lots of small deals, apparently, but nothing outstanding. He also has a poor record in his attempts to run Northampton Town and QPR, being run out of town pretty quickly in each case. However, it is useful to remember that SDM was also chased by the mighty Ayr United and proved a diabolical failure in his attempts to build a sporting empire out of his MIM franchise teams in basketball and ice-hockey. Also, when it comes to property development, we could not possibly get worse that SDM, unless Whyte plans to sell Ibrox: SDM couldn't develop a roll of film.
I could be way off but I reckon many Bears will have at least one foot in the "Not Sure" camp and are probably moving the other foot towards the "Pro-Whyte" camp as things advance (albeit bloody slowly).
The "Anti-Whyte" camp certainly raise some questions that should be asked but, on this board at least, failing to produce anything solid at all to back their position, and attacking posters with other viewpoints as stupid, just makes them appear petulant and childish, rather than genuinely concerned for Rangers or for debate

So, in summary (admittedly a long-winded one) we appear to have three different camps in this thread:
Camp 1: Pro-Whyte
Key arguments in favour:
1 - Get Lloyds largely out of Ranger's decision making process by clearing all but 4 million of the debt owed.
2 - Get rid of SDM and current board who have overseen slide to current position. Almost any change must be good.
3 - New manager can start planning for season ahead with, alledgedly, increased budget for playing staff and potential for investment in new players of 5 - 10 million, plus any income from sales.
4 - New ownership and new board = new thinking and new growth opportunities.
Evidence to support Whyte bid being the right one:
1 - Media reports that Whyte is worth Billions/hundreds of millions/tens of millions/well, he owns a castle........... Actually, there is almost nothing in the public domain to support any of this. Nobody outside of the deal has a clue what his true resources are.
2 - From what little is leaking out about the deal, it appears that SDM/Lloyds/AJ and the supervisory committee believe that Whyte has adequately proved that he has the funds to purchase the shareholding of SDM and clear the majority of the debt. The closest we have to any sort of confirmation, though, is AJ's statement to the Plus Exchange in which his main gripe is over the lack of a binding commitment in the paperwork at that time in regards to the ongoing funding of the playing squad; he acknowledges that the proposed deal pays off SDM and Lloyds. So Whyte appears to have at least 25 million plus, that some people have seen evidence of.
3 - Media reports that Whyte will invest up to 25 million over 5 years, including 10 million in the first year, in refurbishing the squad. Again there is only circumstantial evidence of this. Both sides seem to be leaking that this is in the deal but not locked down yet, which appears to be a key sticking point and one that the anti-Whyte camp are jumping on (possibly quite rightly).
Main concerns: Why do we know so little about him? What are his real resources? Why does he want to own Rangers and what are his long-term plans?
Camp 2 - Not Sure
Quite possibly a very large part of the fanbase. Fed up with all the negativity around the club and an owner who has long ago lost all interest. Hate to see players being lost due to budgetary reasons (rather than because they are just pish) and disappointed with the lack of quality we are able to bring into the team. Would love to see new owners and new investment but just not sure about Whyte.
The lack of detail about who are new owner is, and what his motives are, is a concern however. Are we getting Murray years 1 - 10, or Murray since? Even worse, are we going to do a Portsmouth?
But who else is out there? P Murray and King? Hmmmmmmm...........
Camp 3 - Anti-Whyte
Key arguments against:
1 - Whyte hasn't got any money. He doesn't even really have the 25 million odd that SDM/Lloyds/AJ appear to think he has. Pre-plumbing toilet apparatus humour used for illustration purposes.
2 - Whyte has previously been declared bankrupt.
3 - Whyte is a conman and thief. Veiled allusions to stealing diggers and a castle roof.
4 - Whyte is an asset-stripper and there is no evidence of any business successes.
5 - Ellis is involved. Ellis is a property developer and therefore evil. Ellis tried buying a club before Rangers and was chased out of town. Eliis also lacks the relevant toilet equipment.
Evidence to support Whyte bid being the wrong one:
1 - Links to other forums where someone has copied tabloid articles showing that Whyte has had court action initiated against him by HMRC and other creditors in the 1990s. Nowhere in these articles, however, to those tabloids state the outcome of those actions. You would expect that if the judgments had gone against Whyte, that would be the headline news, not the initiation of the actions. Especially since the news articles were written years after the disputes.
2 - In one of the same tabloid articles, the issue of Whyte's insolvency is raised in connection to (again) the commencement, not the outcome, of proceedings against him by creditors. The only direct quote is from Whyte himself, saying he has never been declared bankrupt, which is not contradicted.
3 - Of Whyte's "Grand Theft Digger" operations, we have only ever so witty veiled references from forum posters but no evidence. No details of prosecutions, no court reports, no media reports even.
4 - Of Whyte's previous business successes, there truly is very little evidence, if any. This is, to my mind, the strongest argument in the anti-Whyte camp's armoury. Due to the lack of information about his business dealings in the public domain, the only thing we have to go on is the fact that the players on the other side of the deal all seem to be taking him seriously. But this issue should concern all Bears. However, the term "asset-stripper" seems to get used by people who have little understanding of what it means: Rangers really do not have a great many assets worth stripping that could not be much more easily obtained elsewhere for much less work.
5 - Ellis is a strange one and another strong point for the anti-Whyte camp, but possibly not for the reasons they think. I would just question what expertise he brings to the deal for his 25% cut of SDM's shares? He has no great property development track record. Lots of small deals, apparently, but nothing outstanding. He also has a poor record in his attempts to run Northampton Town and QPR, being run out of town pretty quickly in each case. However, it is useful to remember that SDM was also chased by the mighty Ayr United and proved a diabolical failure in his attempts to build a sporting empire out of his MIM franchise teams in basketball and ice-hockey. Also, when it comes to property development, we could not possibly get worse that SDM, unless Whyte plans to sell Ibrox: SDM couldn't develop a roll of film.
I could be way off but I reckon many Bears will have at least one foot in the "Not Sure" camp and are probably moving the other foot towards the "Pro-Whyte" camp as things advance (albeit bloody slowly).
The "Anti-Whyte" camp certainly raise some questions that should be asked but, on this board at least, failing to produce anything solid at all to back their position, and attacking posters with other viewpoints as stupid, just makes them appear petulant and childish, rather than genuinely concerned for Rangers or for debate

So, in summary (admittedly a long-winded one) we appear to have three different camps in this thread:
Camp 1: Pro-Whyte
Key arguments in favour:
1 - Get Lloyds largely out of Ranger's decision making process by clearing all but 4 million of the debt owed.
2 - Get rid of SDM and current board who have overseen slide to current position. Almost any change must be good.
3 - New manager can start planning for season ahead with, alledgedly, increased budget for playing staff and potential for investment in new players of 5 - 10 million, plus any income from sales.
4 - New ownership and new board = new thinking and new growth opportunities.
Evidence to support Whyte bid being the right one:
1 - Media reports that Whyte is worth Billions/hundreds of millions/tens of millions/well, he owns a castle........... Actually, there is almost nothing in the public domain to support any of this. Nobody outside of the deal has a clue what his true resources are.
2 - From what little is leaking out about the deal, it appears that SDM/Lloyds/AJ and the supervisory committee believe that Whyte has adequately proved that he has the funds to purchase the shareholding of SDM and clear the majority of the debt. The closest we have to any sort of confirmation, though, is AJ's statement to the Plus Exchange in which his main gripe is over the lack of a binding commitment in the paperwork at that time in regards to the ongoing funding of the playing squad; he acknowledges that the proposed deal pays off SDM and Lloyds. So Whyte appears to have at least 25 million plus, that some people have seen evidence of.
3 - Media reports that Whyte will invest up to 25 million over 5 years, including 10 million in the first year, in refurbishing the squad. Again there is only circumstantial evidence of this. Both sides seem to be leaking that this is in the deal but not locked down yet, which appears to be a key sticking point and one that the anti-Whyte camp are jumping on (possibly quite rightly).
Main concerns: Why do we know so little about him? What are his real resources? Why does he want to own Rangers and what are his long-term plans?
Camp 2 - Not Sure
Quite possibly a very large part of the fanbase. Fed up with all the negativity around the club and an owner who has long ago lost all interest. Hate to see players being lost due to budgetary reasons (rather than because they are just pish) and disappointed with the lack of quality we are able to bring into the team. Would love to see new owners and new investment but just not sure about Whyte.
The lack of detail about who are new owner is, and what his motives are, is a concern however. Are we getting Murray years 1 - 10, or Murray since? Even worse, are we going to do a Portsmouth?
But who else is out there? P Murray and King? Hmmmmmmm...........
Camp 3 - Anti-Whyte
Key arguments against:
1 - Whyte hasn't got any money. He doesn't even really have the 25 million odd that SDM/Lloyds/AJ appear to think he has. Pre-plumbing toilet apparatus humour used for illustration purposes.
2 - Whyte has previously been declared bankrupt.
3 - Whyte is a conman and thief. Veiled allusions to stealing diggers and a castle roof.
4 - Whyte is an asset-stripper and there is no evidence of any business successes.
5 - Ellis is involved. Ellis is a property developer and therefore evil. Ellis tried buying a club before Rangers and was chased out of town. Eliis also lacks the relevant toilet equipment.
Evidence to support Whyte bid being the wrong one:
1 - Links to other forums where someone has copied tabloid articles showing that Whyte has had court action initiated against him by HMRC and other creditors in the 1990s. Nowhere in these articles, however, to those tabloids state the outcome of those actions. You would expect that if the judgments had gone against Whyte, that would be the headline news, not the initiation of the actions. Especially since the news articles were written years after the disputes.
2 - In one of the same tabloid articles, the issue of Whyte's insolvency is raised in connection to (again) the commencement, not the outcome, of proceedings against him by creditors. The only direct quote is from Whyte himself, saying he has never been declared bankrupt, which is not contradicted.
3 - Of Whyte's "Grand Theft Digger" operations, we have only ever so witty veiled references from forum posters but no evidence. No details of prosecutions, no court reports, no media reports even.
4 - Of Whyte's previous business successes, there truly is very little evidence, if any. This is, to my mind, the strongest argument in the anti-Whyte camp's armoury. Due to the lack of information about his business dealings in the public domain, the only thing we have to go on is the fact that the players on the other side of the deal all seem to be taking him seriously. But this issue should concern all Bears. However, the term "asset-stripper" seems to get used by people who have little understanding of what it means: Rangers really do not have a great many assets worth stripping that could not be much more easily obtained elsewhere for much less work.
5 - Ellis is a strange one and another strong point for the anti-Whyte camp, but possibly not for the reasons they think. I would just question what expertise he brings to the deal for his 25% cut of SDM's shares? He has no great property development track record. Lots of small deals, apparently, but nothing outstanding. He also has a poor record in his attempts to run Northampton Town and QPR, being run out of town pretty quickly in each case. However, it is useful to remember that SDM was also chased by the mighty Ayr United and proved a diabolical failure in his attempts to build a sporting empire out of his MIM franchise teams in basketball and ice-hockey. Also, when it comes to property development, we could not possibly get worse that SDM, unless Whyte plans to sell Ibrox: SDM couldn't develop a roll of film.
I could be way off but I reckon many Bears will have at least one foot in the "Not Sure" camp and are probably moving the other foot towards the "Pro-Whyte" camp as things advance (albeit bloody slowly).
The "Anti-Whyte" camp certainly raise some questions that should be asked but, on this board at least, failing to produce anything solid at all to back their position, and attacking posters with other viewpoints as stupid, just makes them appear petulant and childish, rather than genuinely concerned for Rangers or for debate

Reading between the lines - do you think that there’s a deal for Murray to sell The Rangers and he’s agreed to it?

If we get any more injuries he might be fuckin playin!

Oh FFS go and post about something else.
How do I negative rep this motherfucker?!

In the long run it doesn't matter what UEFA, the spl or the SFA do about it if the club don't want and are confirming they will deal with it then is it worth losing your ticket over.
To some it must be...

a song about a sectarian razor gang.
cant say i miss it.