Jump to content

Hugh Adam


billmcmurdo

Recommended Posts

Just because Murray wasn't as much of a crook in the legal sense doesn't mean he didn't f*ck us over.

It's something that probably still needs to be judged in the fulness of time.

In terms of the debt we were in when he left, it wasn't particularly bad at all, the potential debt caused by the EBT situation was the main problem. Undertaking that scheme could be regarded as reckless, but he was following expert advice which proved to be accurate.

The decision to sell to Whyte is clearly and unequivocally wrong, regardless of whatever pressures he was under to do so from Lloyds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's something that probably still needs to be judged in the fulness of time.

In terms of the debt we were in when he left, it wasn't particularly bad at all, the potential debt caused by the EBT situation was the main problem. Undertaking that scheme could be regarded as reckless, but he was following expert advice which proved to be accurate.

The decision to sell to Whyte is clearly and unequivocally wrong, regardless of whatever pressures he was under to do so from Lloyds.

The debt he built up was unsustainable, that's how Lloyds took control in the first place.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's something that probably still needs to be judged in the fulness of time.

In terms of the debt we were in when he left, it wasn't particularly bad at all, the potential debt caused by the EBT situation was the main problem. Undertaking that scheme could be regarded as reckless, but he was following expert advice which proved to be accurate.

The decision to sell to Whyte is clearly and unequivocally wrong, regardless of whatever pressures he was under to do so from Lloyds.

Your hero could always have volunteered to absolve the club of blame and to pick up any bills arising since as it was all an MIH initiative.

He didn't though, did he?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt he built up was unsustainable, that's how Lloyds took control in the first place.

This still annoys me.

The debt was easily sustainable, and sanctioned by the bank, until Lloyds, in response to the banking crisis, decided to move the goalposts.

Imagine you were halfway through paying your mortgage at £600 a month, and the bank turned round and said, "actually, we now want £30 grand by the end of the month."

Outrageous behaviour from the bank, and deserves to be properly investigated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hugh Adam was a ill old man who was taken advantage off by the likes of thimmy thompson and used as part of the anti-Rangers propaganda machine, his views on David Murray were spot on however and he was a good employee of the club for a long time. I dont bear any grudge towards him.

I don't think anything shows the kind of low life scum that our enemies are better than how they were happy to use a sick old man practically on his death bed to get at us

Link to post
Share on other sites

This still annoys me.

The debt was easily sustainable, and sanctioned by the bank, until Lloyds, in response to the banking crisis, decided to move the goalposts.

Imagine you were halfway through paying your mortgage at £600 a month, and the bank turned round and said, "actually, we now want £30 grand by the end of the month."

Outrageous behaviour from the bank, and deserves to be properly investigated.

Murray paid the price for constant borrowing, you sound as if you're letting him off.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt he built up was unsustainable, that's how Lloyds took control in the first place.

It really was still down to the potential debt, Lloyd's would have assumed they would be getting very little if the case went against us.

Without the HMRC case we wouldn't have been in this position, as the actual debt was manageable and we were maintaining success while doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I.

His daughter says those interviews were deliberate, done by his own free will, and enabled him to speak the truth. I'm not sure who to believe - you or his daughter.

"he found the strength and the will to give interviews on what he considered to be inappropriate practices at the Club many years ago. He did this ... out of a desire for the truth"

You're probably right mate - but it was a stupit decision to be interviewed by anyone with an ulterior agenda. Even at that stage, someone like Traynor would have been ideal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really was still down to the potential debt, Lloyd's would have assumed they would be getting very little if the case went against us.

Without the HMRC case we wouldn't have been in this position, as the actual debt was manageable and we were maintaining success while doing it.

Lloyds came in around 2009 time before the tax case was even an issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where am I saying everyone?

The bank. I stick with that.

If it was simply the bank being shitebags why didn't more football clubs suffer the same way?

They might not be blameless but if Murray's business practises hadn't been so questionable they'd never have got that much power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was simply the bank being shitebags why didn't more football clubs suffer the same way?

They might not be blameless but if Murray's business practises hadn't been so questionable they'd never have got that much power.

Ah. Now you're on to something!

I didn't say shitebags, I said shites. Do a bit of googling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why talk in riddles? I could be wrong, I just don't remember the bank taking control of another football club to that extent.

No riddles mate, but I don't have the time to find all the articles for you.

On the surface, some MSM stuff start with...

http://www.<No links to this website>/sport/football/frustrated-rangers-fans-demand-answers-1098746

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15393428

But you need to go back earlier than that and ask some questions around about the time when Lloyds took over HBOS, and see if you can unearth any details about the board members.

Leggo may be able to help there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No riddles mate, but I don't have the time to find all the articles for you.

On the surface, some MSM stuff start with...

http://www.dailyreco...answers-1098746

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-15393428

But you need to go back earlier than that and ask some questions around about the time when Lloyds took over HBOS, and see if you can unearth any details about the board members.

Leggo may be able to help there.

I'm well aware of Lloyd's actions with the takeover etc.

The difference is I believe Murray has to at least take a large chunk of the blame for allowing them to gain such control, while you seem to believe he was/is an innocent victim of theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What could Hugh Adam have seen from 1987 - 1992 that would have been of interest to Alex Thompson. This was a dual contract investigation from the SPL, which was formed well after Hugh Adam had left Rangers.

So what Bill is saying in his blog is that Hugh Adam seen dual contracts during his time at the Club, which includes the 9 in a row era. He then goes on to say that, it wasn't dual contracts that Hugh saw, but Side Letters.

Side letters are now Dual Contracts, even though Bill has yet to see the contents of a side letter.

I think Bill is letting friendship cloud his vision on this one. Either that, or we have been breaking the rules from 1987,

Link to post
Share on other sites

...while you seem to believe he was/is an innocent victim of theirs.

Yes I do.

And I find it quite depressing the way those same dark forces have managed to convince most that Murray was the bad guy.

Murray ran his businesses and football club exactly the same way that everyone else ran their businesses and football clubs.

The dark forces have been scheming since even before Manchester. Murray/Lloyds was just an early salvo, so most people didn't take the possibility of foul play seriously at the time - yet today, everyone is quite able to see the hand of the dark forces in all the latest goings on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do.

And I find it quite depressing the way those same dark forces have managed to convince most that Murray was the bad guy.

Murray ran his businesses and football club exactly the same way that everyone else ran their businesses and football clubs.

The dark forces have been scheming since even before Manchester. Murray/Lloyds was just an early salvo, so most people didn't take the possibility of foul play seriously at the time - yet today, everyone is quite able to see the hand of the dark forces in all the latest goings on.

So it's all been one big conspiracy is the defence now? Of course people have tried to do us over but by taking advantage of circumstance, not some big chain of events all planned out.

Don't know what Murray did to gain such loyaly from you GB, anything done under his stewardship was to satsify an ego trip and to hell with any future consequences for us. He and his companies made a fortune out of us and we had the constant lies about only selling to the right man.

Notice even now, after much bluster on the week of the tax case verdict, we've heard nothing from him even with this SPL kangaroo court coming up.

Despicable man who is as big an enemy of our club as anyone IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What could Hugh Adam have seen from 1987 - 1992 that would have been of interest to Alex Thompson. This was a dual contract investigation from the SPL, which was formed well after Hugh Adam had left Rangers.

So what Bill is saying in his blog is that Hugh Adam seen dual contracts during his time at the Club, which includes the 9 in a row era. He then goes on to say that, it wasn't dual contracts that Hugh saw, but Side Letters.

Side letters are now Dual Contracts, even though Bill has yet to see the contents of a side letter.

I think Bill is letting friendship cloud his vision on this one. Either that, or we have been breaking the rules from 1987,

Have you ever seen a side letter?

I have

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 05 May 2024 12:00 Until 14:00
      0  
      Rangers v Kilmarnock
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Main Event and Sky Sports Football HD

×
×
  • Create New...