The official "Takeover Completed" thread

[RFC55 110,176]

Are you kidding me on here ?

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

Day-Late Retard headline:

London-Based Spiv In Chinese Carry-Oot Stramash

London-based spiv and all round little man about town, Crape Cripes, was arrested then released last night after a Glasgow Chinese delivery man was 'bumped' for an alleged £3,000 carry-oot bill.

Police were called to a hotel in the city centre where Mr Cripes and his associate, London-based wheelbarrow manufacturer, Andy Trellis, were staying. Witnesses claimed that the Chinese delivery man, a Mr Wan Hung-Lo, was trying to kick in the door of the hotel room Mr Cripes and Mr Trellis were staying in and that he was shouting, "You give me ma' money you cuppa' o' cheap plicks!"

The alleged 'bump' happened when Mr Cripes said to the delivery man, "Oops, I've forgotten my wallet" he then took the food and slammed the door in Mr Hung-Lo's face. Mr Hung-Lo then heard them giggling and laughing behind the door and so he took the action he did to try and gain access.

By the time the Police arrived, Mr Cripes and Mr Trellis had devoured almost £3,000 worth of Chinese caviar, lobster and fillet steak, washed down by several bottles of Chinese wine.

A police spokesman said, "A Chinese delivery man is helping us with our enquiries. We are looking to charge him with criminal damage and breach of the peace. As for the outstanding amount owed, I'm sorry...that's got hee-haw to do with us. That's a Civil matter."

Mr Cripes and Mr Trellis were seen the following evening dancing the night away at Bennett's Bar.

(advertisement)

Brilliant CB although it was in Rondon, Ingwand ( allegedely )

[Spacecowboy 92]

Just a few poimts to clear up here:

who says whyte is going to keep our club debt free for years to come? there will always be a debt at a club the size of rangers and as long as its managable then thats fine. the current situ comes from lloyds not wanting football debt and all thier money back asap. whats to stop him getting loans with other banks at a more favourable rate?

2nd whats to stop whyte coming in and doing another share issue to raise funds? nothing! if its available just now it will be after he takes over. I think he'd be stupid not to think down these lines. its money for nothing really. although it dilutes his stake in the club, it brings in new money, which we really need.

just some point i feel are getting missed by some. there is others but i cant be arsed typing anymore as its now pub lunch time

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

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

Pretty much sums it up for me.

I can't, however, recall trying to make those who oppose my stance look stupid, nor have I attacked anyone (to my knowledge).

I'm definitely in the anti-London-based spiv camp though - and for many of the reasons you give scattered about the three options.

Nice post though.

[boss 1,941]

I have no idea whether Whyte will be good for us IF he buys the Club.

But surely Paul Murray has seriously misjudged the support if he believes we are happy to remain in hock to the bank? We've been there, done that. Indeed, AJ stated at his first AGM as Chairman that we absolutely had to remove ourselves from the shackles of the bank and so be completely free to determine our own destiny. On that point at least, I agree with AJ.

[derekweir29 505]

Has this not gone through yet quite worrying the time its taken.

[bluepeter 5,627]

It favours the bank because they can say, just as you have said "I'm out"

They get their money and run. As part owners of MIH, the pending tax case result is off their shoulders as well. Of course it favours the banks.

NEWSFLASH

If Paul Murray is correct in saying that Craig Whyte is willing to buy the club and take on any debt that is a result of this pending tax case, then this guy is an absolute LOONBALL and should be nowhere near our club.

Are these quotes not contradictory? Clearly Whyte is not going to buy the club with the debt case still hanging over the club as distinct from MIH. So if he buys the club, MIH are still liable and the bank are no better off. Is it less favourable to the banks to still have £25m debt on their books and collect interest payments for the next 20 years on it?

I posted similar in the other thread, feel free to ignore one or the other. I really should be out, this is not what I'm mwant to be doing today....

[TheMotor 2,208]

Pretty much sums it up for me.

I can't, however, recall trying to make those who oppose my stance look stupid, nor have I attacked anyone (to my knowledge).

I'm definitely in the anti-London-based spiv camp though - and for many of the reasons you give scattered about the three options.

Nice post though.

You are quite right Mr Bacon, you have not insulted people on here who take the opposite view; apologies for the generalisation . Others have not been so considerate.

There are questions to be asked whatever side you are on.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Are these quotes not contradictory? Clearly Whyte is not going to buy the club with the debt case still hanging over the club as distinct from MIH. So if he buys the club, MIH are still liable and the bank are no better off. Is it less favourable to the banks to still have £25m debt on their books and collect interest payments for the next 20 years on it?

I posted similar in the other thread, feel free to ignore one or the other. I really should be out, this is not what I'm mwant to be doing today....

Have a read at my other reply mate and we will continue it on that thread rather than over 2.

[bluepeter 5,627]

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

A fine post

[j1mgg 3,766]

I think the main thing our next owner should do is pay off the debt and clear the board out. I am not sure if whyte is the man to do it but that's what I would prefer to be done even if it only means we have 2m per year for the next few years to spend on players.

I don't think there is any chance of buying the club, not reducing the debt and trying to transfer the debt to another bank as I don't think we make enough foe a bank to even look at taking on this debt.

[spangles 7]

dear fucking lord. I've heard enough now

About those chance successes of the renown zillionaire, any luck finding any, or are you just chancing your arm that there are some hidden away somewhere..

[bluepeter 5,627]

About those chance successes of the renown zillionaire, any luck finding any, or are you just chancing your arm that there are some hidden away somewhere..

You're getting pretty repetitive. This zillionaire/billionaire thing is childish, who foisted billionaire status on Whyte anyway? As far as I can see it was the ever-reliable Scottish media, not the man himself. Unless you are able to show differently? Why should something someone else has claimed for him be used as a stick to beat him with?

[gandhisflip 5]

I'm concerned by his venture capitalist/investment background and therefore the likely way any deal is going to be funded. However I have no qualms if he wants to re-invigorate Rangers, then look to sell us on when we join the European/Engligh/Atlantic/ET league and make a quickish £20m for himself - as the Bunnet did at the Terrordome.

To make money (unless he liquidates the club and sells all assets/players - in which case he'd be on the run for life) he needs Rangers to be successful on and off the field. So without being able to hear of his plans due to stock market rules my business logic dictates that this is a better option than Lloyds slowly squeezing our knackers till they pop.

[Johnson 27]

I have spoken to a company director who was involved in a takeover bid with a wee spiv whose name escapes me.

The spiv promised he'd have the cash in place. His funds were part-verified by an investment company (which the spiv owned).

After a long wait, no cash was forthcoming and the takeover fell through, landing this very pisst-off company director with an official rebuke.

But at least the wee spiv offered to meet his share of the bills.

He got his accountant (later struck off) to write him a cheque.

Yup, the cheque bounced. And that was the last he'd heard from the spiv.

Until now.

And I quote: "I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him."

[spangles 7]

You're getting pretty repetitive. This zillionaire/billionaire thing is childish, who foisted billionaire status on Whyte anyway? As far as I can see it was the ever-reliable Scottish media, not the man himself. Unless you are able to show differently? Why should something someone else has claimed for him be used as a stick to beat him with?

So let us get a bit more repetative, point out one of our zillionaires successes, that should keep you occupied.

[Craigie79 67]

So let us get a bit more repetative, point out one of our zillionaires successes, that should keep you occupied.

Perhaps he made his zillions in the Monte Carlo casino's off the back of the money from this "alleged" plant machinery swindle.

[bluepeter 5,627]

So let us get a bit more repetative, point out one of our zillionaires successes, that should keep you occupied.

Absolutely no attempt to respond to my post, where did I say he'd had any successes? Also continuing to use the "zillionaire" tag as a stick to beat him with, where did he use the term (or "billionaire") to describe himself?

Even if you won't answer my posts, I'll have a go at yours: I don't know any.

Now over to you, supply us with some evidence that he has no money. Judging by your posts, that shouldn't take you long at all

[spangles 7]

Perhaps he made his zillions in the Monte Carlo casino's off the back of the money from this "alleged" plant machinery swindle.

What "alleged" plant machinery swindle ? do tell

[spangles 7]

Absolutely no attempt to respond to my post, where did I say he'd had any successes? Also continuing to use the "zillionaire" tag as a stick to beat him with, where did he use the term (or "billionaire") to describe himself?

Even if you won't answer my posts, I'll have a go at yours: I don't know any.

Now over to you, supply us with some evidence that he has no money. Judging by your posts, that shouldn't take you long at all

You will have to supply the evidence that I ever said he had no money, which I didn't, but at least you agree there is no record of success.

[bluepeter 5,627]

You will have to supply the evidence that I ever said he had no money, which I didn't, but at least you agree there is no record of success.

Deflection, eh?

So, saying that I don't know of any business successes he has is the same as agreeing there are none? Really? Must try harder...

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Spangles, as much as im probably closer to your camp than others on this takeover, the way you come across to fellow bears reeks. We know you have a low opinion of Whyte, but can you not simply put it across without all the wee snidey digs ?

[spangles 7]

Deflection, eh?

So, saying that I don't know of any business successes he has is the same as agreeing there are none? Really? Must try harder...

You really must try much harder, like I said, no record of business success, and I never said he had no money, you on the other hand agreed you did not know of any business success, as deflection goes you are an expert, you probably think the Earth is flat.

[johnw 22]

take it theres no new updates with all the bickering goin on???

[KingKirk 25,811]

So if Murray rejects the whyte bid(even tho no bid has been made yet)

Is whyte the only man in town can someone tell me, Would paul Murray and his bid get through I doubt it