He had "wealth off the radar".

Rangerista

Rangerista

Well-Known Member
I don't like going over old ground, especially when it involves such a despicable character. But in tonight's Glasgow Evening Times in a feature called "20 years ago", this conman extraordinaire's criminal past is re-visited. How the feck this charlatan ever got near our club continues to be the $64000 question.
 
Rangerista said:
I don't like going over old ground, especially when it involves such a despicable character. But in tonight's Glasgow Evening Times in a feature called "20 years ago", this conman extraordinaire's criminal past is re-visited. How the feck this charlatan ever got near our club continues to be the $64000 question.
Click to expand...

Especially when he was already on the HMRC’s radar
 
Mr.Spock said:
So much for Murray and the SFA's due diligence.
Click to expand...

I don't believe for one moment that Murray was taken in. Murray knew exactly what he was doing. He was under pressure to sell and he needed a deal. I doubt he really cared who he was selling to so long as he got the money. Murray was always about Murray. Rangers were a distant second to his ego.

As to the SFA, they were just incompetent and they still are.
 
Whitburnbear said:
It will take a lot of explaining to convince me we were not subjected to a concerted effort to rid Scotland of Rangers
Sorry if its tin foil hat stuff but hey ho
Click to expand...

It’s also not outside the realm of truth, the way our country from the very top of the political food chain to the man that sat at the helm of our club, corruption was rife and the ultimate goal was to rid Scotland of Rangers and the last true bastion of Unionism and Britishness in this shitty wee country.

What you say may seem extraordinary but it does all add up quite easily.
 
Whitburnbear said:
It will take a lot of explaining to convince me we were not subjected to a concerted effort to rid Scotland of Rangers
Sorry if its tin foil hat stuff but hey ho
Click to expand...

I am with you mate, this never just happened because an opportunist saw his chance.

As detailed on H&H Murray knew every little thing about David Edgar's life but could not figure out that a "fellow" millionaire businessman was a fraudster. Then again I cannot believe that Murray would feed us to the wolves even if his hand was being forced.
 
Hillheadbear said:
I don't believe for one moment that Murray was taken in. Murray knew exactly what he was doing. He was under pressure to sell and he needed a deal. I doubt he really cared who he was selling to so long as he got the money. Murray was always about Murray. Rangers were a distant second to his ego.

As to the SFA, they were just incompetent and they still are.
Click to expand...
I think there was little appetite from the sfa to dip deep, they simply waited for the inevitable outcome .
 
Please think about what you are saying before you agree that David Murray selling the shares his companies owned in Rangers to a company owned by Craig Whyte was "... a concerted effort to rid Scotland of Rangers"
 
One thing people underestimate is that these stories that where placed in the media about Whyte's wealth played a huge part in what happend.

Without it there would have been no ticketus money and no approval of the takeover from the independent takeover panel.
 
SasaPapacLoyal54 said:
One thing people underestimate is that these stories that where placed in the media about Whyte's wealth played a huge part in what happend.

Without it there would have been no ticketus money and no approval of the takeover from the independent takeover panel.
Click to expand...

I have said this many times, Keith Jackson played a pivotal role in what happened. He sold Whyte to the Rangers support.

Why people ever defend him astonishes me.
 
SasaPapacLoyal54 said:
One thing people underestimate is that these stories that where placed in the media about Whyte's wealth played a huge part in what happend.

Without it there would have been no ticketus money and no approval of the takeover from the independent takeover panel.
Click to expand...

without the original loan taken out by murray from ticketus, there wouldn't have been an another ticketus loan you mean

those loans were secured against future season ticket income
 
Whitburnbear said:
It will take a lot of explaining to convince me we were not subjected to a concerted effort to rid Scotland of Rangers
Sorry if its tin foil hat stuff but hey ho
Click to expand...

I just tend to think that Murray would have sold it to anyone just to get away from the mess he had made of our club.

He spent money like there was no tomorrow while most of us lapped it up but a few fans started to ask questions.
 
Greebo said:
Do you think Lloyds bank were part of "... a concerted effort to rid Scotland of Rangers"
Click to expand...

Do I think people within certain departments of Lloyds may have been either motivated politically or induced? Stranger things have happened. Lloyds as an entity probably don't care one way or another whether Rangers do or do not exist. They did want to ensure they were paid what they were owed though.

Join the dots. At that level of business, there are very few coincidences!
 
Lainey Love said:
I just tend to think that Murray would have sold it to anyone just to get away from the mess he had made of our club.

He spent money like there was no tomorrow while most of us lapped it up but a few fans started to ask questions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he didn't piss away his own money. He pissed away Dave King's and Joe Lewis's. His businesses didn't go tits up because of Rangers. It was because of his high risk foray into commercial property as I predicted on FF at the time.

But he cleverly ring fenced his own personal wealth so that when MI went down the tubes he was still an exceedingly rich man.
 
steve1873 said:
Do I think people within certain departments of Lloyds may have been either motivated politically or induced? Stranger things have happened. Lloyds as an entity probably don't care one way or another whether Rangers do or do not exist. They did want to ensure they were paid what they were owed though.

Join the dots. At that level of business, there are very few coincidences!
Click to expand...

Very large companies don't work that way. Yeah, there will be individuals with personal preferences, bias and hatred. But there are simply too many players for that to become the defining factor.

At the end of the day, Lloyds wanted their money and they didn't much care about the damage it would do to Rangers. If Murray has owned someone else it would have been the same scenario.
 
Hillheadbear said:
I don't believe for one moment that Murray was taken in. Murray knew exactly what he was doing. He was under pressure to sell and he needed a deal. I doubt he really cared who he was selling to so long as he got the money. Murray was always about Murray. Rangers were a distant second to his ego.

As to the SFA, they were just incompetent and they still are.
Click to expand...

There’s not a chance in hell Murray was ‘duped’ into selling to Whyte. It’s actually ridiculous to even suggest as much. With his contacts and business experience, Murray would have had a shitload of information on Whyte, he still chose to sell to him. The fact is, he wanted out and didn’t give a shit who was taking over.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Very large companies don't work that way. Yeah, there will be individuals with personal preferences, bias and hatred. But there are simply too many players for that to become the defining factor.

At the end of the day, Lloyds wanted their money and they didn't much care about the damage it would do to Rangers. If Murray has owned someone else it would have been the same scenario.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Lloyds absorbed HBOS, looked at it and realised how ridiculous their relationship with Murray and his companies was. The borrowing and security (or lack thereof) covering it was mental.

They took action to sort that out. Rangers were basically collateral damage.

All caused by David Murray.
 
thetoptier said:
without the original loan taken out by murray from ticketus, there wouldn't have been an another ticketus loan you mean

those loans were secured against future season ticket income
Click to expand...

Yeah the relationship between the club and ticketus was already there but Whyte negotiated his deal with them prior to the deal for him to buy us was completed.

Believe it or not Ticketus actually believed he was a billionaire due to these stories.

Amateur stuff from ticketus but that's why they lost alot of money on the deal.

I fully believe without these planted stories the whyte takeover doesn't go through.
 
Greebo said:
Indeed.

Lloyds absorbed HBOS, looked at it and realised how ridiculous their relationship with Murray and his companies was. The borrowing and security (or lack thereof) covering it was mental.

They took action to sort that out. Rangers were basically collateral damage.

All caused by David Murray.
Click to expand...

I cannot remember the actual figures, but Rangers were approximately £18 million in debt at the time and that figure was falling steadily. MIM were, and purely a hazy memory here, £800 odd million in debt at the time. The way in which we were administered by the bank, including the placeman they put on the board (the name escapes me) did not and still does not make much sense in that context. We were actually one of his better performing companies.

Edit, obviously the looming Tax case was a big factor so perhaps it did make sense, but the vigour with which it hall happened just felt hugely out of proportion at the time.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
I cannot remember the actual figures, but Rangers were approximately £18 million in debt at the time and that figure was falling steadily. MIM were, and purely a hazy memory here, £800 odd million in debt at the time. The way in which we were administered by the bank, including the placeman they put on the board (the name escapes me) did not and still does not make much sense in that context. We were actually one of his better performing companies.

Edit, obviously the looming Tax case was a big factor so perhaps it did make sense, but the vigour with which it hall happened just felt hugely out of proportion at the time.
Click to expand...

We were sold because we could be. The rest of MI was underwater. The value of his commercial property had collapsed and there were no buyers out there. Rangers was the only asset he had which could be realised.
 
SasaPapacLoyal54 said:
Yeah the relationship between the club and ticketus was already there but Whyte negotiated his deal with them prior to the deal for him to buy us was completed.

Believe it or not Ticketus actually believed he was a billionaire due to these stories.

Amateur stuff from ticketus but that's why they lost alot of money on the deal.

I fully believe without these planted stories the whyte takeover doesn't go through.
Click to expand...

TBF he did furnish them a lawyer's letter stating he did have funds - a fraud of course

does everyone remember andrew ellis?

whyte without the Ticketus loan

the relationship with Ticketus IMO was central to the whole thing
 
Hillheadbear said:
We were sold because we could be. The rest of MI was underwater. The value of his commercial property had collapsed and there were no buyers out there. Rangers was the only asset he had which could be realised.
Click to expand...
It 'only' realised an £18000001 shift in the loss column, alongside dropping the potential liability of TBC, which was a drop in the ocean. I get that we had to be sold because we could be sold, it was more the forced board member and absolute control from Lloyds I was meaning. Sure, sell the club on, but that is not what happened in isolation.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Yeah, but he didn't piss away his own money. He pissed away Dave King's and Joe Lewis's. His businesses didn't go tits up because of Rangers. It was because of his high risk foray into commercial property as I predicted on FF at the time.

But he cleverly ring fenced his own personal wealth so that when MI went down the tubes he was still an exceedingly rich man.
Click to expand...

you could also add that the complexity of company law means very few rich men are ever prosecuted for their negligence and fraud.

the fact that craig whyte, ahmed, green, the wigs et al are all still free and making money tells you all you need to know.

thieves run our country with the full protection and acquiescence of the law.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
It 'only' realised an £18000001 shift in the loss column, alongside dropping the potential liability of TBC, which was a drop in the ocean. I get that we had to be sold because we could be sold, it was more the forced board member and absolute control from Lloyds I was meaning. Sure, sell the club on, but that is not what happened in isolation.
Click to expand...

Agree with your perspective. Maybe it is a reflection of the pressure Lloyds were under to generate cash at the time.
 
thetoptier said:
TBF he did furnish them a lawyer's letter stating he did have funds - a fraud of course

does everyone remember andrew ellis?

whyte without the Ticketus loan

the relationship with Ticketus IMO was central to the whole thing
Click to expand...

The 18 million in that account was ticketus money.

His company 'wavetower' never actually invested a penny.
 
I think the phrase "off the radar" has been misunderstood in some quarters. It doesn't mean huge or anything like that. It can mean hard to find or hard to see. Though, in the case of Whyte's alleged wealth, it went beyond that, unfortunately.
 
JayDee said:
I think the phrase "off the radar" has been misunderstood in some quarters. It doesn't mean huge or anything like that. It can mean hard to find or hard to see. Though, in the case of Whyte's alleged wealth, it went beyond that, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

It was clearly intended to make the fans believe that Whyte had so much money it was beyond counting.

Has it really taken that long for you to come up with that ridiculous interpretation.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Agree with your perspective. Maybe it is a reflection of the pressure Lloyds were under to generate cash at the time.
Click to expand...
It did generate cash in terms of debt repayments so that might well be it, but we were reducing the debt season on season anyway so the happening seem to be a lot of pain for a tiny bit of gain in the grand scheme.

I guess we will never know truly what went on.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
I think it is actually pretty much irrelevant now. He either did not do the due diligence required or he did, both are equal in terms of negligence towards the club.
Click to expand...

Let's not pretend, people knew who and what Whyte was, including David Murray and Lloyds.

The sale went through anyway.

Keith Jackson was brought in to sell it to the Rangers support.
 
Greebo said:
It was clearly intended to make the fans believe that Whyte had so much money it was beyond counting.

Has it really taken that long for you to come up with that ridiculous interpretation.
Click to expand...

From a dictionary definition: "tending to escape detection or attention". Though maybe Jackson didn't know what it meant.
 
Greebo said:
Let's not pretend, people knew who and what Whyte was, including David Murray and Lloyds.

The sale went through anyway.

Keith Jackson was brought in to sell it to the Rangers support.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, I just think it makes no difference. Even if Murray was 'duped', he failed us just as badly.
 
GEODGC said:
There’s not a chance in hell Murray was ‘duped’ into selling to Whyte. It’s actually ridiculous to even suggest as much. With his contacts and business experience, Murray would have had a shitload of information on Whyte, he still chose to sell to him. The fact is, he wanted out and didn’t give a shit who was taking over.
Click to expand...
I agree in part. He didn’t care but to suggest he would know everyone in business because of his connections is folly.

He wanted out and didn’t care what Whyte might represent.

Whyte is a piece of shit of the highest order.
 
JayDee said:
From a dictionary definition: "tending to escape detection or attention". Though maybe Jackson didn't know what it meant.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you are quoting dictionary definitions now.

Genuine question, what do you think he meant to convey by "Wealth off the radar" given the context.

I think he wanted the Rangers support to believe that Whyte was a billionaire who could put unlimited funds into the club. Do you disagree.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Very large companies don't work that way. Yeah, there will be individuals with personal preferences, bias and hatred. But there are simply too many players for that to become the defining factor.

At the end of the day, Lloyds wanted their money and they didn't much care about the damage it would do to Rangers. If Murray has owned someone else it would have been the same scenario.
Click to expand...
Yep, and that is why Murray got to cherry pick his assets and wander off into the sunset an even wealthier man. You will be saying next that Lloyds never let him do that. If that is the next option, take a wee look at what the Rangers debt and liability was compared to the rest of the Murray group. Lloyds certainly didn't want their money, just some of it.

The way the cards fell tells a different tale to you.
 
It was all part of the plan to get Murray off with millions.

Murray is to blame no one else.

I sincerely hope there are no pictures of that lady's front bottom at Ibrox
 
Greebo said:
Seriously, you are quoting dictionary definitions now.

Genuine question, what do you think he meant to convey by "Wealth off the radar" given the context.

I think he wanted the Rangers support to believe that Whyte was a billionaire who could put unlimited funds into the club. Do you disagree.
Click to expand...

I don't like Jackson but I don't believe he was involved in any sort of plot or anything like that, if that's what anyone's suggesting. It's just that he deals in sensationalism and bullshit to try to sell papers or get hits.
 
I’m surprised that this has been overlooked in favour of the Whyte=Cun.t discussion.

This is absolute dynamite.

Never have we seen through papers or internet a single article pointing to him as a total fraud.
Yet here is Glasgows’ evening newspaper saying it ran a report of him fucking off with millions of pounds of debt in his wake.

That’s the equivalent of the London Evening Standard having an expose on Abramovich prior to Chelsea but it being airbrushed from history with no-one batting an eyelid.

Who wrote the article? Why was a further one not published around the time when he was to be anointed as a billionaire owner?
That’s a journalists job.

Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top