Just My Thoughts...

[Loan Ranger 48]

I just cant get my head round this...Perhaps I think with too much logic?

Why would you sign up current players on lucrative contracts - spend a few mill in the transfer market - spend money on Ibrox etc etc

If...you thought there was any chance of losing a tax case that would result in possible solvency?

Seriously...if this was the case the club could have sold McGregor, Davis, Jelavic, Lafferty etc

and pretty much make the money needed to potentially save the club?

I just dont buy all this shit that has been flying about recently...I mean consider the source of the accusations - a murderous social worker and 2 'factions' who are your opponents in legal challenges...

The clubs statemnt about the small claim in court this week - described it as 'ludricous' - which suggests to me that they (Rangers) consider this whole saga with far less importance than those reporting it.

Whats clear is that there is definitely a campaign out there against our club - of course the usual suspects are prominent in this but there is obvious leaks both within Rangers and the HRMC.

These people want us to turn against the club/owmers etc - so I for one will be going on blind faith until something solid actually happens.

Now I obviously dont know the ins or outs...and this is full on conspiracy theory now but - IF the club did go into solvency could the old regime then come in and take control of a debt free Rangers?

I dont mean Murray - I mean Bain etc

Its a crazy thought but it would make sense - explaining the leaks inside Ibrox - it would give a reason for the campaign against us...and didnt this law firm represent Rangers whilst they were with the old regime??

Probably talking pish but feel free to educate me?

I see Levy are representing Bain - so its not 2 separate claims - its 1 claim aired twice.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

I just cant get my head round this...Perhaps I think with too much logic?

Why would you sign up current players on lucrative contracts - spend a few mill in the transfer market - spend money on Ibrox etc etc

If...you thought there was any chance of losing a tax case that would result in possible solvency?

Seriously...if this was the case the club could have sold McGregor, Davis, Jelavic, Lafferty etc

and pretty much make the money needed to potentially save the club?

I just dont buy all this shit that has been flying about recently...I mean consider the source of the accusations - a murderous social worker and 2 'factions' who are your opponents in legal challenges...

The clubs statemnt about the small claim in court this week - described it as 'ludricous' - which suggests to me that they (Rangers) consider this whole saga with far less importance than those reporting it.

Whats clear is that there is definitely a campaign out there against our club - of course the usual suspects are prominent in this but there is obvious leaks both within Rangers and the HRMC.

These people want us to turn against the club/owmers etc - so I for one will be going on blind faith until something solid actually happens.

Now I obviously dont know the ins or outs...and this is full on conspiracy theory now but - IF the club did go into solvency could the old regime then come in and take control of a debt free Rangers?

I dont mean Murray - I mean Bain etc

Its a crazy thought but it would make sense - explaining the leaks inside Ibrox - it would give a reason for the campaign against us...and didnt this law firm represent Rangers whilst they were with the old regime??

Probably talking pish but feel free to educate me?

I see Levy are representing Bain - so its not 2 separate claims - its 1 claim aired twice.

Right i will have a go and bare in mind this is just hypothetical.

Guy sees an opportunity to buy a football club for £18m knowing if the club loses a legal battle he gets it all back. No major risk.

Guy spends a few mil in the transfer market knowing if the club loses a legal battle he gets it all back. No major risk.

Guy spends money on the ground for the same reasons as above. No major risk.

Guy extends contracts knowing if the club loses a legal battle, then the players can be sold at a decent value, which in turn will see all his money returned. By extending these contracts and keeping the players, he is actually protecting HIS investment.

So far, no real risk taken as if it goes pear shaped he gets his money back.

What he doesnt bargain on though is not getting into the CL. All of a sudden, he realises that as there is no overdraft and he needs to put in a lot more capital into the business to pay everything. This represents risk.

Not only is it risk, but perhaps the money isnt there as there is no certifiable or traceable wealth story about this person.

So Plan B kicks in.

Plan B is that he cant wait on the big tax bill as perhaps there isnt enough money to pay everything.

To do so, the available resources needs to remain low. So he knocks back a Jelavic bid to a) protect his investment and b) to ensure it doesnt boost the clubs funds. Bare in mind, money gotten from sales cannot be touched by him, whilst we are a working cash positive business.

And here we are, running up additional legal bills and penalties for non payments.

We are rumoured to be missing deadline after deadline.

Eventually somebody will snap.

And when they do, and all the good player assets we have are sold individually or collectively, the owner gets all his money back and he walks away.

Why do it in the first place.

Well if we got into the CL and we won the Tax Case, he had just bought one of the Worlds most famous football clubs for £18m. Thats why.

All hypothetical of course.

[strar8 55]

I just cant get my head round this...Perhaps I think with too much logic?

Why would you sign up current players on lucrative contracts - spend a few mill in the transfer market - spend money on Ibrox etc etc

If...you thought there was any chance of losing a tax case that would result in possible solvency?

Seriously...if this was the case the club could have sold McGregor, Davis, Jelavic, Lafferty etc

and pretty much make the money needed to potentially save the club?

I just dont buy all this shit that has been flying about recently...I mean consider the source of the accusations - a murderous social worker and 2 'factions' who are your opponents in legal challenges...

The clubs statemnt about the small claim in court this week - described it as 'ludricous' - which suggests to me that they (Rangers) consider this whole saga with far less importance than those reporting it.

Whats clear is that there is definitely a campaign out there against our club - of course the usual suspects are prominent in this but there is obvious leaks both within Rangers and the HRMC.

These people want us to turn against the club/owmers etc - so I for one will be going on blind faith until something solid actually happens.

Now I obviously dont know the ins or outs...and this is full on conspiracy theory now but - IF the club did go into solvency could the old regime then come in and take control of a debt free Rangers?

I dont mean Murray - I mean Bain etc

Its a crazy thought but it would make sense - explaining the leaks inside Ibrox - it would give a reason for the campaign against us...and didnt this law firm represent Rangers whilst they were with the old regime??

Probably talking pish but feel free to educate me?

I see Levy are representing Bain - so its not 2 separate claims - its 1 claim aired twice.

Agree with most of that, apart from the bit about the old "regime" taking back control. If things were so bad then the club wouldn't have handed players long term contracts and like you said spent money on players and refitting Ibrox (unless they were doing it up to sell it )

I, like most bears, want to hear what Craig Whyte has to say about everything and I will reserve judgement until then.

[AlbertzLoyalRSC 18,157]

Right i will have a go and bare in mind this is just hypothetical.

Guy sees an opportunity to buy a football club for £18m knowing if the club loses a legal battle he gets it all back. No major risk.

Guy spends a few mil in the transfer market knowing if the club loses a legal battle he gets it all back. No major risk.

Guy spends money on the ground for the same reasons as above. No major risk.

Guy extends contracts knowing if the club loses a legal battle, then the players can be sold at a decent value, which in turn will see all his money returned. By extending these contracts and keeping the players, he is actually protecting HIS investment.

So far, no real risk taken as if it goes pear shaped he gets his money back.

What he doesnt bargain on though is not getting into the CL. All of a sudden, he realises that as there is no overdraft and he needs to put in a lot more capital into the business to pay everything. This represents risk.

Not only is it risk, but perhaps the money isnt there as there is no certifiable or traceable wealth story about this person.

So Plan B kicks in.

Plan B is that he cant wait on the big tax bill as perhaps there isnt enough money to pay everything.

To do so, the available resources needs to remain low. So he knocks back a Jelavic bid to a) protect his investment and b) to ensure it doesnt boost the clubs funds. Bare in mind, money gotten from sales cannot be touched by him, whilst we are a working cash positive business.

And here we are, running up additional legal bills and penalties for non payments.

We are rumoured to be missing deadline after deadline.

Eventually somebody will snap.

And when they do, and all the good player assets we have are sold individually or collectively, the owner gets all his money back and he walks away.

Why do it in the first place.

Well if we got into the CL and we won the Tax Case, he had just bought one of the Worlds most famous football clubs for £18m. Thats why.

All hypothetical of course.

Hypothetical, and a load of shite.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Hypothetical, and a load of shite.

Perhaps.

The OP was looking for a set of circumstances that could explain an alterior motive.

I was merely answering him

[delamonty 992]

Right i will have a go and bare in mind this is just hypothetical.

Guy sees an opportunity to buy a football club for £18m knowing if the club loses a legal battle he gets it all back. No major risk.

Guy spends a few mil in the transfer market knowing if the club loses a legal battle he gets it all back. No major risk.

Guy spends money on the ground for the same reasons as above. No major risk.

Guy extends contracts knowing if the club loses a legal battle, then the players can be sold at a decent value, which in turn will see all his money returned. By extending these contracts and keeping the players, he is actually protecting HIS investment.

So far, no real risk taken as if it goes pear shaped he gets his money back.

What he doesnt bargain on though is not getting into the CL. All of a sudden, he realises that as there is no overdraft and he needs to put in a lot more capital into the business to pay everything. This represents risk.

Not only is it risk, but perhaps the money isnt there as there is no certifiable or traceable wealth story about this person.

So Plan B kicks in.

Plan B is that he cant wait on the big tax bill as perhaps there isnt enough money to pay everything.

To do so, the available resources needs to remain low. So he knocks back a Jelavic bid to a) protect his investment and b) to ensure it doesnt boost the clubs funds. Bare in mind, money gotten from sales cannot be touched by him, whilst we are a working cash positive business.

And here we are, running up additional legal bills and penalties for non payments.

We are rumoured to be missing deadline after deadline.

Eventually somebody will snap.

And when they do, and all the good player assets we have are sold individually or collectively, the owner gets all his money back and he walks away.

Why do it in the first place.

Well if we got into the CL and we won the Tax Case, he had just bought one of the Worlds most famous football clubs for £18m. Thats why.

All hypothetical of course.

Always informative mate.... Like your posts.

Here's my issue though.

Why would any self confessed Rangers man take our club into admin to make a few bob? Buying The Rangers in the 'hope' that it 'really' just costs a quid or 2 makes no sense.

And... If he (Whyte) tries to take us down this path.... surely there will be hell to pay.

Now, that's just a wee bit of a rant. Whyte must be a fairly smart guy. After all, I don't own The Rangers, -- too busy working :-) -- but the point is... He convinced the bank and SDM he is the real deal.

He needs to get to some specifics this week. Long over due imho. I said on another thread.. Perhaps this job/project has taken him by surprise a wee bit? Who prepares you for being owner of RFC? Harvard? Nope;. Cambridge? Nope. etc. etc. etc.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Always informative mate.... Like your posts.

Here's my issue though.

Why would any self confessed Rangers man take our club into admin to make a few bob? Buying The Rangers in the 'hope' that it 'really' just costs a quid or 2 makes no sense.

And... If he (Whyte) tries to take us down this path.... surely there will be hell to pay.

Now, that's just a wee bit of a rant. Whyte must be a fairly smart guy. After all, I don't own The Rangers, -- too busy working :-) -- but the point is... He convinced the bank and SDM he is the real deal.

He needs to get to some specifics this week. Long over due imho. I said on another thread.. Perhaps this job/project has taken him by surprise a wee bit? Who prepares you for being owner of RFC? Harvard? Nope;. Cambridge? Nope. etc. etc. etc.

Cheers Delamonty

Again, im trying to stay on the hypothesy to answer.

He saw an opportunity and thought it was a no lose scenario. If the big tax case went against us and it forced us into administration, nobody at all would have blamed Craig Whyte, if everything else had went well over the last 2 months. He would have said "sorry guys but it was Murrays fault. I did my best"

I dont think there would have been hell to pay if we had got into the CL if im being honest as i dont think this recent stuff would be going on. There will be hell to pay now though, cause he is now on the hook and people are now starting to ask questions.

Convincing the bank and SDM is a complete red herring mate. The bank didnt give a monkeys who bought Rangers. They just wanted the money. Think about it this way. You have a mortgage of £200k and you lose your job so you go to the bank and defer a couple of payments whilst you sell your house. You could sell it to Fred West for all they care, as long as they get their £200k. As for SDM, whilst i genuinely believe he wanted to find the right buyer for us, i think he knew what was round the corner, and he couldnt take that kind of hit as his other businesses were already haemoraging. Remember. He sold Glasgow Rangers FC for ONE POUND.

I think it has taken him by surprise and i would bet he isnt sleeping well at night, but the thing is, NOTHING that has happened over the last 4 months should be a surprise to Craig Whyte, if he is even 20% as good as people think he is. All of these bills were documented and available to see during the due diligence with the exception of Bain, whose situation is a direct result of Whyte making a mess of his dismissal.