tonyrougier - 21 February 2012 11:48 AM

There are always Rangers fans who get upset when they are tarred with a certain brush - but they rarely acknowledge the type of perfomance that was broadcast on Saturday (I’m not talking about the team’s).  My Rangers supporting friends are the same.  It isn’t a small minority, it is ingrained in the culture, identity, and commercial value of the club - but people choose to associate with it and then get offended by reasonable generalities.  In the face of this they go on the offensive about other clubs.

Yes, there were 50,000 fans there.  They may or may not come back when season tickets are invalid.  Those 50,000 will turn up to a pointless game at great expense, throwing money down Craig Whyte’s toilet; they will NOT mobilise as a useful entity and harness their collective power and wealth. They are passive and wait for a Big Man to come and provide for them!

Good article in the Herald today about progressive ownership for the ‘loyal’ to ignore:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/rangers-crisis-gives-fans-a-game-changing-opportunity.16791933

I think you’ll be surprised.

Until the EBT tribunal is decided the club’s future is still in the air. No mobilisation of fans would be enough alone simply due to the sheer sums of money involved. The most practical way of moving forward is the fans contribting to buying a stake in the club with the rest held by other shareholders. The Paul Murray consortium looks to be looking at something similar.

BrianLaudrup - 21 February 2012 12:49 PM

tonyrougier - 21 February 2012 11:48 AM

There are always Rangers fans who get upset when they are tarred with a certain brush - but they rarely acknowledge the type of perfomance that was broadcast on Saturday (I’m not talking about the team’s).  My Rangers supporting friends are the same.  It isn’t a small minority, it is ingrained in the culture, identity, and commercial value of the club - but people choose to associate with it and then get offended by reasonable generalities.  In the face of this they go on the offensive about other clubs.

Yes, there were 50,000 fans there.  They may or may not come back when season tickets are invalid.  Those 50,000 will turn up to a pointless game at great expense, throwing money down Craig Whyte’s toilet; they will NOT mobilise as a useful entity and harness their collective power and wealth. They are passive and wait for a Big Man to come and provide for them!

Good article in the Herald today about progressive ownership for the ‘loyal’ to ignore:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/rangers-crisis-gives-fans-a-game-changing-opportunity.16791933

I think you’ll be surprised.

Until the EBT tribunal is decided the club’s future is still in the air. No mobilisation of fans would be enough alone simply due to the sheer sums of money involved. The most practical way of moving forward is the fans contribting to buying a stake in the club with the rest held by other shareholders. The Paul Murray consortium looks to be looking at something similar.

I don’t know much about the other potential interested parties other than rumours but if Paul Murray and his consortium would be willing to implement an increase in fan representation then he would have my backing. There are plenty of Rangers fans out there with money to invest but there has to be scheme in place where you know it is going to be a worthwhile investment, giving money to Murray or Whyte was effectively throwing it away. The model of sole ownership of the club is over IMO.

tonyrougier - 21 February 2012 11:48 AM

There are always Rangers fans who get upset when they are tarred with a certain brush - but they rarely acknowledge the type of perfomance that was broadcast on Saturday (I’m not talking about the team’s).  My Rangers supporting friends are the same.  It isn’t a small minority, it is ingrained in the culture, identity, and commercial value of the club - but people choose to associate with it and then get offended by reasonable generalities.  In the face of this they go on the offensive about other clubs.

Yes, there were 50,000 fans there.  They may or may not come back when season tickets are invalid.  Those 50,000 will turn up to a pointless game at great expense, throwing money down Craig Whyte’s toilet; they will NOT mobilise as a useful entity and harness their collective power and wealth. They are passive and wait for a Big Man to come and provide for them! 

Good article in the Herald today about progressive ownership for the ‘loyal’ to ignore:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/rangers-crisis-gives-fans-a-game-changing-opportunity.16791933

More people turned up in the car park to protest on 10 July 1989 than on 14th Feb 2012.

Even now, the sense of entitlement persists. Rangers fans await, no DEMAND someone bail them out, be it Alex Salmond, David Cameron, Paul Murray or indeed anyone who is willing to assume responsiblilty.

The same mentality led to the eagerness to accept Whyte as their savoiur last May. A quick google search would have started alarm bells ringing about his credibility, but the loyal were only too happy to be spoonfed more moonbeams from a compliant media. Any doubts cast upon Mr Whyte’s wealth, ethics or objectives was shouted down as disinformation by mischief makers. Moderators on forums took to deleting posts from dissenters. The leaders of their own fans’ groups have been complicit in allowing the whole sorry episode to reach this stage - by refusing to accept or failing to highlight what was seemingly obvious about their new custodian and his dubious business history, they were happily cheerleading as Whyte led them into the abyss. Some still cling to the hope that Whyte has “played a blinder” and has some sort of masterplan up his sleeve.

And yet, it continues. Instead of mobilising & taking the chance to affect proper change at their club, the mantra of “too big a club” is still trotted out, even when discussing the future should the club in it’s current form become defunct. We are told that Rangers 2012 MUST be allowed to compete in the SPL for the good of the game, for the tv money. There is little acceptance of any wrongdoing, far less agreement that sanctions should be imposed

Brian Laudrup:

I think you’ll be surprised.

I actually think it would be good if you’re right.  The coverage it would eventually attract would set a good example and in same way as many fans are currently learning about administration they would become better aware of what fan power can mean.

But the other guy:

Again there it is, I object to that, blah blah, what about your team etc

1.  This is a 6-pager about your club - according to received wisdom it is crucial to all of Scottish football and I contributed a Scottish fan’s under-represented, yet popular, view.  Of course I don’t like Rangers, but I made no mention of jelly or ice-cream, and I stuck to points that are relevant to both the immediate future for Rangers, and the implications for our game nationally.

2.  There is little interest in my club on these pages, so I generally discuss them elsewhere.  I am a Raith Rovers supporter.

3.  I haven’t ever said every fan of your club is a moron or a bigot, I know for certain they aren’t.  But there is always the spectre of your club’s undeniable culture, and undoubtedly rather than explain your choice to associate with it you will have a go at me about my club’s attendances or my right to discuss your club’s position - despite, I’ll reiterate, the fact we are told our game needs a strong Rangers.  The nasty stuff you prefer to ignore is part of the brand, which is the major value of the club as a business. Therefore, it’s relevant.  In the event of a liquidation, the ‘phoenix’ club, or Newco, will - as you correctly mention - will be a force to be reckoned with eventually precisely because of the identity it has.  There are core aspects of that identity which reveal themselves in (criminal) behaviour like that which was observed in tens of thousands of fans on Saturday.  If you are going to object to being tarred with that brush, you’ll have to help the rest of us understand how you distance yourself from it while still identifying yourself as a fan.

Alternative Alf Garnett - 21 February 2012 01:05 PM

tonyrougier - 21 February 2012 11:48 AM

There are always Rangers fans who get upset when they are tarred with a certain brush - but they rarely acknowledge the type of perfomance that was broadcast on Saturday (I’m not talking about the team’s).  My Rangers supporting friends are the same.  It isn’t a small minority, it is ingrained in the culture, identity, and commercial value of the club - but people choose to associate with it and then get offended by reasonable generalities.  In the face of this they go on the offensive about other clubs.

Yes, there were 50,000 fans there.  They may or may not come back when season tickets are invalid.  Those 50,000 will turn up to a pointless game at great expense, throwing money down Craig Whyte’s toilet; they will NOT mobilise as a useful entity and harness their collective power and wealth. They are passive and wait for a Big Man to come and provide for them! 

Good article in the Herald today about progressive ownership for the ‘loyal’ to ignore:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/rangers-crisis-gives-fans-a-game-changing-opportunity.16791933

More people turned up in the car park to protest on 10 July 1989 than on 14th Feb 2012.

Even now, the sense of entitlement persists. Rangers fans await, no DEMAND someone bail them out, be it Alex Salmond, David Cameron, Paul Murray or indeed anyone who is willing to assume responsiblilty.

The same mentality led to the eagerness to accept Whyte as their savoiur last May. A quick google search would have started alarm bells ringing about his credibility, but the loyal were only too happy to be spoonfed more moonbeams from a compliant media. Any doubts cast upon Mr Whyte’s wealth, ethics or objectives was shouted down as disinformation by mischief makers. Moderators on forums took to deleting posts from dissenters. The leaders of their own fans’ groups have been complicit in allowing the whole sorry episode to reach this stage - by refusing to accept or failing to highlight what was seemingly obvious about their new custodian and his dubious business history, they were happily cheerleading as Whyte led them into the abyss. Some still cling to the hope that Whyte has “played a blinder” and has some sort of masterplan up his sleeve.

And yet, it continues. Instead of mobilising & taking the chance to affect proper change at their club, the mantra of “too big a club” is still trotted out, even when discussing the future should the club in it’s current form become defunct. We are told that Rangers 2012 MUST be allowed to compete in the SPL for the good of the game, for the tv money. There is little acceptance of any wrongdoing, far less agreement that sanctions should be imposed

Pity the Daily Record couldn’t pay a couple of alkies to burn Rangers scarfs this time.

The RST have met with Paul Murray last night with regards to a takeover. Both parties seem to be supporting fan representation and are against the idea of the club being run by one man again which is positive. However theres still a long, long way to go with this story.

The 1989 “protest” was a farce of selective editing, photography and publications paying people to burn scarfs and books.

It’s easy to say “The fans should have done something” when Whyte came in but the reality of the situation is that for years the fans have been removed from any position of power by the club.

Murray very slowly eliminated opposition and gathered shares through the nineties to the point where he was virtually a dictator. The shares issue to attack the £80 million debt was opposed by most fans able to invest and yet this backfired. More shares for Murray and more power. So when it got to the point where Murray and Lloyds decided the club had to change owner we had zero power in deciding who took over. Lloyds held Murray’s balls in a vice and Murray’s monstrous shareholding ensured even the board had little say.

He was welcomed in of course and given benefit of the doubt but that still doesn’t mean we didn’t question him. Lack of investment and numerous sackings brought meetings between Whyte and the RSA, RST and VB. As did the lack of an AGM or accounts. The thing is yet again Whyte’s shareholding ensures that we really have no power. He removed us from PLUS which removed a great deal of the voluntary transparency Murray opted into and we were left with no way of fighting him. The issues were already being highlighted in the media, our financial plight was well discussed…all we could do was wait.

As such now we DO need a saviour but not just to pour money in. We need someone to break up that shareholding and Paul Murray looks the best bet. 10-15 men sharing the power and then a shares issue backed by the fan groups could see us with some power. The root of all this was in the lack of action under Murray in the nineties, but it’s harsh to blame the fans of today. What could we have done?

tonyrougier - 21 February 2012 01:13 PM

Brian Laudrup:

I think you’ll be surprised.

I actually think it would be good if you’re right.  The coverage it would eventually attract would set a good example and in same way as many fans are currently learning about administration they would become better aware of what fan power can mean.

But the other guy:

Again there it is, I object to that, blah blah, what about your team etc

1.  This is a 6-pager about your club - according to received wisdom it is crucial to all of Scottish football and I contributed a Scottish fan’s under-represented, yet popular, view.  Of course I don’t like Rangers, but I made no mention of jelly or ice-cream, and I stuck to points that are relevant to both the immediate future for Rangers, and the implications for our game nationally.

2.  There is little interest in my club on these pages, so I generally discuss them elsewhere.  I am a Raith Rovers supporter.

3.  I haven’t ever said every fan of your club is a moron or a bigot, I know for certain they aren’t.  But there is always the spectre of your club’s undeniable culture, and undoubtedly rather than explain your choice to associate with it you will have a go at me about my club’s attendances or my right to discuss your club’s position - despite, I’ll reiterate, the fact we are told our game needs a strong Rangers.  The nasty stuff you prefer to ignore is part of the brand, which is the major value of the club as a business. Therefore, it’s relevant.  In the event of a liquidation, the ‘phoenix’ club, or Newco, will - as you correctly mention - will be a force to be reckoned with eventually precisely because of the identity it has.  There are core aspects of that identity which reveal themselves in (criminal) behaviour like that which was observed in tens of thousands of fans on Saturday.  If you are going to object to being tarred with that brush, you’ll have to help the rest of us understand how you distance yourself from it while still identifying yourself as a fan.

I don’t really consider the club’s perceived identity or culture as being as much of a problem as you do, I would rather just cut out the sectarian stuff but I don’t like being lectured on it, particularly as what is considered legal or illegal is a bit of grey area and the staggering amount of hypocrisy that surrounds the issue, obviously there is some stuff that is clearly unacceptable but that has largely been phased out, as for Saturday, despite what you will read in certain sections of the media, the ‘Billy Boys’ was not sung by the Rangers support, the Kilmarnock support did sing the Killie Boys but I find it unbelievable that the media don’t know the difference between the two. As for the use of the word ‘f*nian’, again I would rather it wasn’t used at all but I can’t accept the mock outrage about it considering Celtic fans themselves use the word in a song about one of their own players.

I am not interested in getting in to any further debate about sectarianism, I am far more concerned with the future ownership and financial health of my club and I don’t think that this debate should or will have any part to play in it.

I am not interested in getting in to any further debate about sectarianism, I am far more concerned with the future ownership and financial health of my club and I don’t think that this debate should or will have any part to play in it.

Can we get that as a banner for the next home game, right across the Govan?

CrunchbiteJr - 21 February 2012 02:58 PM

I am not interested in getting in to any further debate about sectarianism, I am far more concerned with the future ownership and financial health of my club and I don’t think that this debate should or will have any part to play in it.

Can we get that as a banner for the next home game, right across the Govan?

That’s a pretty big banner

I agree that this isn’t the place for old arguments about sectariansim. It’s not really relevant to what’s going on currently, and it’s not exclusively the Old Firm’s problem anyway, although Celtic and Rangers are (quite literally) the flagbearers.

From today’s Evening Times

JORG ALBERTZ experienced the full force of a partisan Ibrox crowd during his trophy-laden five years in Glasgow.
Now the German reckons it is time power was given to the people as the champions edge closer to becoming the highest profile fan-owned club in Britain.
The appetite for supporters to be given a greater say in the running of their club has grown in recent days as more details have emerged regarding Rangers’ bleak financial outlook and Craig Whyte’s running of the Gers since he assumed control from Sir David Murray last May.
Former Ibrox director Paul Murray is at the forefront of plans to remove Whyte and give the Light Blue legions the power to invest in their club and make key decisions.
His ‘Blue Knights’ proposal would see supporters pay £1000 for one share and one vote and could be launched within the next couple of weeks.
Murray’s plans, which are likely be based on the Hamburg model of fan ownership, are set to be given backing by a number of wealthy Scottish businessmen and high-profile Gers heroes and Albertz, who had spells with the Rothosen either side of his time in Glasgow, reckons the time has come for the Ibrox crowd to have their say.
“It is a great idea and if real Rangers supporters are given the chance to have a say in how the club is run then that can only be a good thing,” Albertz said.
“If it can work for clubs like Hamburg then why should it not work for Rangers? I don’t think there will be any problems in bringing fan ownership to Scotland.
“The club has to talk to them because it will be in their best interests.
“What better idea could there be for a club than to give the supporters a voice? If the fans don’t want the best for the club, then who would?”
The idea of fan ownership has been greeted with optimism amongst sections of the Ibrox crowd before, with fans keen to see Rangers base themselves on Hamburg, a club they already have a close affinity with.
The Bundesliga side now have more than 50,000 fee-paying members who elect a supervisory board, who in turn elect the board of directors.
A number of top-flight clubs operate similar schemes, which are aided by government legislation.
Members’ clubs in Germany are exempt from paying tax on membership, as long as they can guarantee that they do not make profits, and there is a 50 plus one rule which means no external investor is allowed to assume outright control of clubs.
“Hamburg fans who pay money into the club are given a vote in the running of the club and work together with the board,” Albertz said.
“There are a few clubs who are run in this way.
“If it was to be brought in at Rangers, I think it would be very interesting.
“It would mean that the club is really owned by the supporters and that will ensure that everything is always done in the best interest of the club, instead of one person owning the club and being allowed to do whatever they want with it, and do whatever is in their interests to make money as a businessman. If that is the case, then some of their decisions may not go down well with the supporters.
“If clubs are in difficulties, like Rangers are just now unfortunately, then the supporters can come together and find the way forward.
“If the Hamburg model is one that can be used at Rangers and one that helps keep the club alive then, of course, it is something that must be considered.”

With crowds in the Bundesliga and television incomes dwarfing those our top flight can attract, Scottish fans have often looked to Germany for inspiration as to how we could save our ailing national game.
Clubs across the country come under strict watchful eyes to ensure their finances remain in check and Albertz reckons those in the Hampden corridors of power could learn a lot from their counterparts at the German Football Association.
He said: “All the clubs in Germany must have a licence with the Football Association.
“Every year, it has to be renewed and they have to show their financial situation and meet so many regulations.
“Whether you are in the Bundesliga or the lower leagues, there are regulations in place that you must meet to be granted your licence and, if you don’t, then there are punishments handed out.
“If you don’t have your licence then you don’t play. I think that is the right way. You want to be a fan of a club that is well run where the finances are good. It is in the interest of the clubs that they have someone above them to make sure everything is right.

This is exactly what I would like to see happen.

Well what do you think of Whyte’s statement then?

He did use Ticketus to fund the takeover.
He’s leaving as chairman.
He might gift his shares to the fans.

CrunchbiteJr - 21 February 2012 05:49 PM

Well what do you think of Whyte’s statement then?

He did use Ticketus to fund the takeover.
He’s leaving as chairman.
He might gift his shares to the fans.

Some gift considering he’s paid for them with our season ticket money.

CrunchbiteJr - 21 February 2012 05:49 PM

Well what do you think of Whyte’s statement then?

He did use Ticketus to fund the takeover.
He’s leaving as chairman.
He might gift his shares to the fans.

I can’t take anything he says at face value, I just want him sell up and fuck off.

To be fair, if he does that he’ll have written off his original £1.

Not something any Scottish businessman would do lightly.

So, to my understanding, Whyte has just came into the club to make a quick buck, am I right? Or is he actually trying to make us debt free and more financially sound after the administration? ‘Cause I really cannot tell!

RFT 123 - 21 February 2012 08:37 PM

So, to my understanding, Whyte has just came into the club to make a quick buck, am I right? Or is he actually trying to make us debt free and more financially sound after the administration? ‘Cause I really cannot tell!

In essence here is what Craig Whyte did.

1) Craig Whyte offers to buy Rangers from David Murray. David Murray asked for proof he could afford it. Whyte shows Murray a bank account with £33 million in it.

2) Sometime between then and the takeover he decides it’d be better for the club to sell 100,000 Rangers season tickets to Ticketus for around £20 million (around half their value) and fund the takeover using that.

3) Murray under pressure from Lloyds sells to Whyte under the proviso that the bank debt is cleared.

4) Whyte uses ticketus money to pay off bank debt. Claims that this has been down out of his own pocket.

5) Whyte then runs club with no investment, fails to pay taxes and sells some club assets (including our Arsenal shares) to keep club going.

Rangers then go into administration due to not paying taxes. Whyte has ran us to administration without paying a penny into the club, instead selling tickets to fund it.

CrunchbiteJr - 21 February 2012 09:28 PM

RFT 123 - 21 February 2012 08:37 PM

So, to my understanding, Whyte has just came into the club to make a quick buck, am I right? Or is he actually trying to make us debt free and more financially sound after the administration? ‘Cause I really cannot tell!

In essence here is what Craig Whyte did.

1) Craig Whyte offers to buy Rangers from David Murray. David Murray asked for proof he could afford it. Whyte shows Murray a bank account with £33 million in it.

2) Sometime between then and the takeover he decides it’d be better for the club to sell 100,000 Rangers season tickets to Ticketus for around £20 million (around half their value) and fund the takeover using that.

3) Murray under pressure from Lloyds sells to Whyte under the proviso that the bank debt is cleared.

4) Whyte uses ticketus money to pay off bank debt. Claims that this has been down out of his own pocket.

5) Whyte then runs club with no investment, fails to pay taxes and sells some club assets (including our Arsenal shares) to keep club going.

Rangers then go into administration due to not paying taxes. Whyte has ran us to administration without paying a penny into the club, instead selling tickets to fund it.

Ah right, got ya! Just the whole thing is shrouded in uncertainty, its all a bit vague what’s going on. If he wants to step down as chairman after we leave administration, like he has said, then I’ll be happy!

Apparently Whyte went to Ticketus in advance of his takeover, took out the loan on the proviso that he/the holding company Ticketus paid take over the club. He then uses this money, that will be paid back unless Whyte takes over the club, to prove to Murray that he has the cash. Then pays off the bank and bleeds every penny from the club to run it.

I don’t think it was even his £1 that he used to buy the club.

CRAIG WHYTE has flogged 102 years of Rangers history by selling the club’s shares in Arsenal.
The latest revelation, which will sicken the club’s supporters, has come to light as part of Record Sport’s explosive investigation into Whyte and the £1 deal he struck to buy Rangers after selling off £24.4 million worth of season tickets to finance his takeover.
Fresh information in our possession now shows how Whyte struck a deal worth more than £230,000 with a consortium called Red and White to sell off the 16 shares and cash in on a historic link between the clubs dating back to 1910.
And brazenly, Whyte then blocked a move for the cash to be paid into the Rangers bank account, demanding instead it stayed lodged in one of his own companies, Pritchard Stockbrokers in Bournemouth.
Pritchard’s assets have now been frozen on the orders of the Financial Services Authority. The FSA moved in on Friday after ruling that Pritchard, who listed Whyte as board ­secretary, had used client money to cover its own costs.
The increasingly ­embattled Whyte then resigned from his position at Pritchard’s before standing down from two further directors’ posts with related companies, Merchant Corporate Recovery and Merchant Strategic Renewal.
Now Rangers’ ­administrators, Duff and Phelps, may attempt to recover the missing money as they fight to clean up the financial carnage which Whyte has created during his disastrous nine months at the Ibrox helm.
The close friendship forged between Rangers and Arsenal spans back to the turn of the last century when the Londoners were experiencing financial trouble of their own.
It’s believed Rangers attempted to help out by buying two shares in ­Woolwich Arsenal because their manager, George Morrell, had previously worked for the Ibrox club.
Around 20 years later, a much stronger and vibrant Arsenal gifted Rangers with a further 14 shares in return for their support during troubled times.
This cemented what was already a rock solid ­relationship between the then managers, Bill Struth and Herbert Chapman.Struth and Chapman are today revered by fans all over the world as the greatest servants in the history of their clubs.
But Whyte ignored these historic links when he seized control of Struth’s old side and saw a chance to make a killing on the link.

It just goes on and on

FieldMarshall85 - 22 February 2012 10:14 AM

CRAIG WHYTE has flogged 102 years of Rangers history by selling the club’s shares in Arsenal.
The latest revelation, which will sicken the club’s supporters, has come to light as part of Record Sport’s explosive investigation into Whyte and the £1 deal he struck to buy Rangers after selling off £24.4 million worth of season tickets to finance his takeover.
Fresh information in our possession now shows how Whyte struck a deal worth more than £230,000 with a consortium called Red and White to sell off the 16 shares and cash in on a historic link between the clubs dating back to 1910.
And brazenly, Whyte then blocked a move for the cash to be paid into the Rangers bank account, demanding instead it stayed lodged in one of his own companies, Pritchard Stockbrokers in Bournemouth.
Pritchard’s assets have now been frozen on the orders of the Financial Services Authority. The FSA moved in on Friday after ruling that Pritchard, who listed Whyte as board ­secretary, had used client money to cover its own costs.
The increasingly ­embattled Whyte then resigned from his position at Pritchard’s before standing down from two further directors’ posts with related companies, Merchant Corporate Recovery and Merchant Strategic Renewal.
Now Rangers’ ­administrators, Duff and Phelps, may attempt to recover the missing money as they fight to clean up the financial carnage which Whyte has created during his disastrous nine months at the Ibrox helm.
The close friendship forged between Rangers and Arsenal spans back to the turn of the last century when the Londoners were experiencing financial trouble of their own.
It’s believed Rangers attempted to help out by buying two shares in ­Woolwich Arsenal because their manager, George Morrell, had previously worked for the Ibrox club.
Around 20 years later, a much stronger and vibrant Arsenal gifted Rangers with a further 14 shares in return for their support during troubled times.
This cemented what was already a rock solid ­relationship between the then managers, Bill Struth and Herbert Chapman.Struth and Chapman are today revered by fans all over the world as the greatest servants in the history of their clubs.
But Whyte ignored these historic links when he seized control of Struth’s old side and saw a chance to make a killing on the link.

It just goes on and on

Red & White is Alisher Usmanov’s investment vehicle to buy up shares in Arsenal, this now means for Arsenal that Usmanov is closer to the 30% he’s after…

Thanks Craig Whyte, thanks…

Juan Flo Evra The Cocu’s Nesta - 22 February 2012 10:57 AM

FieldMarshall85 - 22 February 2012 10:14 AM

CRAIG WHYTE has flogged 102 years of Rangers history by selling the club’s shares in Arsenal.
The latest revelation, which will sicken the club’s supporters, has come to light as part of Record Sport’s explosive investigation into Whyte and the £1 deal he struck to buy Rangers after selling off £24.4 million worth of season tickets to finance his takeover.
Fresh information in our possession now shows how Whyte struck a deal worth more than £230,000 with a consortium called Red and White to sell off the 16 shares and cash in on a historic link between the clubs dating back to 1910.
And brazenly, Whyte then blocked a move for the cash to be paid into the Rangers bank account, demanding instead it stayed lodged in one of his own companies, Pritchard Stockbrokers in Bournemouth.
Pritchard’s assets have now been frozen on the orders of the Financial Services Authority. The FSA moved in on Friday after ruling that Pritchard, who listed Whyte as board ­secretary, had used client money to cover its own costs.
The increasingly ­embattled Whyte then resigned from his position at Pritchard’s before standing down from two further directors’ posts with related companies, Merchant Corporate Recovery and Merchant Strategic Renewal.
Now Rangers’ ­administrators, Duff and Phelps, may attempt to recover the missing money as they fight to clean up the financial carnage which Whyte has created during his disastrous nine months at the Ibrox helm.
The close friendship forged between Rangers and Arsenal spans back to the turn of the last century when the Londoners were experiencing financial trouble of their own.
It’s believed Rangers attempted to help out by buying two shares in ­Woolwich Arsenal because their manager, George Morrell, had previously worked for the Ibrox club.
Around 20 years later, a much stronger and vibrant Arsenal gifted Rangers with a further 14 shares in return for their support during troubled times.
This cemented what was already a rock solid ­relationship between the then managers, Bill Struth and Herbert Chapman.Struth and Chapman are today revered by fans all over the world as the greatest servants in the history of their clubs.
But Whyte ignored these historic links when he seized control of Struth’s old side and saw a chance to make a killing on the link.

It just goes on and on

Red & White is Alisher Usmanov’s investment vehicle to buy up shares in Arsenal, this now means for Arsenal that Usmanov is closer to the 30% he’s after…

Thanks Rangers, thanks…

You can thank Craig Whyte, no-one else connected with Rangers is happy about this.

FieldMarshall85 - 22 February 2012 11:01 AM

Juan Flo Evra The Cocu’s Nesta - 22 February 2012 10:57 AM

FieldMarshall85 - 22 February 2012 10:14 AM

CRAIG WHYTE has flogged 102 years of Rangers history by selling the club’s shares in Arsenal.
The latest revelation, which will sicken the club’s supporters, has come to light as part of Record Sport’s explosive investigation into Whyte and the £1 deal he struck to buy Rangers after selling off £24.4 million worth of season tickets to finance his takeover.
Fresh information in our possession now shows how Whyte struck a deal worth more than £230,000 with a consortium called Red and White to sell off the 16 shares and cash in on a historic link between the clubs dating back to 1910.
And brazenly, Whyte then blocked a move for the cash to be paid into the Rangers bank account, demanding instead it stayed lodged in one of his own companies, Pritchard Stockbrokers in Bournemouth.
Pritchard’s assets have now been frozen on the orders of the Financial Services Authority. The FSA moved in on Friday after ruling that Pritchard, who listed Whyte as board ­secretary, had used client money to cover its own costs.
The increasingly ­embattled Whyte then resigned from his position at Pritchard’s before standing down from two further directors’ posts with related companies, Merchant Corporate Recovery and Merchant Strategic Renewal.
Now Rangers’ ­administrators, Duff and Phelps, may attempt to recover the missing money as they fight to clean up the financial carnage which Whyte has created during his disastrous nine months at the Ibrox helm.
The close friendship forged between Rangers and Arsenal spans back to the turn of the last century when the Londoners were experiencing financial trouble of their own.
It’s believed Rangers attempted to help out by buying two shares in ­Woolwich Arsenal because their manager, George Morrell, had previously worked for the Ibrox club.
Around 20 years later, a much stronger and vibrant Arsenal gifted Rangers with a further 14 shares in return for their support during troubled times.
This cemented what was already a rock solid ­relationship between the then managers, Bill Struth and Herbert Chapman.Struth and Chapman are today revered by fans all over the world as the greatest servants in the history of their clubs.
But Whyte ignored these historic links when he seized control of Struth’s old side and saw a chance to make a killing on the link.

It just goes on and on

Red & White is Alisher Usmanov’s investment vehicle to buy up shares in Arsenal, this now means for Arsenal that Usmanov is closer to the 30% he’s after…

Thanks Rangers, thanks…

You can thank Craig Whyte, no-one else connected with Rangers is happy about this.

Amended.

Can’t believe he sold the Arsenal shares.

CrunchbiteJr - 22 February 2012 01:05 PM

Can’t believe he sold the Arsenal shares.

£200k for a part of our history. A disgrace.

I’m pretty sure he’d sell his own mother for a quick buck.

Sheffield Hysterical - 22 February 2012 02:02 PM

I’m pretty sure he’d sell his own mother for a quick buck.

in fairness, she is on a 5 year 35k a week contract and has started 3 games at right back

I understand why ye’re annoyed but surely the stake in Arsenal can’t be that important (unless I’m missing something).

José and his Amazing Technicolor Overcoat - 23 February 2012 12:42 AM

I understand why ye’re annoyed but surely the stake in Arsenal can’t be that important (unless I’m missing something).

It’s a part of our history, a link to a time when Rangers were nothing more than a growing name under Bill Struth. It’s a reminder that we were there along side the likes of Arsenal building British football and that we helped in that. Without our history we’re just any other club. Our history defines us, makes us who we are. Yes it’s not as important as other things in that club but to sell any part of our history hurts. Those shares were the clubs history and selling them shows he has NO conception of what Rangers is and what’s important to us.

CrunchbiteJr - 23 February 2012 12:48 AM

José and his Amazing Technicolor Overcoat - 23 February 2012 12:42 AM

I understand why ye’re annoyed but surely the stake in Arsenal can’t be that important (unless I’m missing something).

It’s a part of our history, a link to a time when Rangers were nothing more than a growing name under Bill Struth. It’s a reminder that we were there along side the likes of Arsenal building British football and that we helped in that. Without our history we’re just any other club. Our history defines us, makes us who we are. Yes it’s not as important as other things in that club but to sell any part of our history hurts. Those shares were the clubs history and selling them shows he has NO conception of what Rangers is and what’s important to us.

I don’t think he ever had a concern for Rangers’ history or given the feelings of the fans a second thought.

His previous business dealings show him to be a ruthless asset stripper, he just happens to have hit the motherload with Rangers,and he set about the task with gusto. Apparently cash lodged with solicitors & stuff like that going on, lord only knows where he’s squirrelled money away, although I’d be willing to bet that most of it won’t find it’s way back into Rangers coffers.

Rumours of players being let go today an all. Could be another bleak day for youse bears.

Absolutely gutted for the players and staff that are going to be made redundant today. I’m sitting with everything crossed that we can keep a hold of Steven Naismith and Jamie Ness on the playing side.

I’m wondering if anyone who was arguing that Scottish football could thrive without Rangers has had their opinion changed after the comments from Geoff Brown the St. Johnstone chairman or whats happening at Dunfermline?

BrianLaudrup - 01 March 2012 12:08 PM

Absolutely gutted for the players and staff that are going to be made redundant today. I’m sitting with everything crossed that we can keep a hold of Steven Naismith and Jamie Ness on the playing side.

I’m wondering if anyone who was arguing that Scottish football could thrive without Rangers has had their opinion changed after the comments from Geoff Brown the St. Johnstone chairman or whats happening at Dunfermline?

To be fair, If Rangers hadn’t bumped them for £85k they might be in a better position.

Darke Stanic Mills - 01 March 2012 12:28 PM

BrianLaudrup - 01 March 2012 12:08 PM

Absolutely gutted for the players and staff that are going to be made redundant today. I’m sitting with everything crossed that we can keep a hold of Steven Naismith and Jamie Ness on the playing side.

I’m wondering if anyone who was arguing that Scottish football could thrive without Rangers has had their opinion changed after the comments from Geoff Brown the St. Johnstone chairman or whats happening at Dunfermline?

To be fair, If Rangers hadn’t bumped them for £85k they might be in a better position.

Thats exactly the point. Without one lot of away tickets they can’t pay their players wages.

I’m taking no pleasure from this whatsoever but it is food for thought.

I must say I don’t understand this Arsenal shares hate

I don’t think that if you still had plenty money and sold them that you would even be the slightest bit bothered

This is just personal opinion and not any inside info but I cannot see how Rangers can avoid liquidation, our majority shareholder has engineered this situation and effectively stolen money that should have been used to pay creditors and keep the club afloat. If it really does come to liquidation and starting a new club, I would honestly rather apply for the SFL and start again in Division 3, we are not going to be able to compete in the SPL for a few years anyway and the thought of having to go cap in hand to the likes of Lawwell and Thompson is something I would hate to see. Most of all it would give us a chance to build a team of young Scottish players.

BrianLaudrup - 01 March 2012 12:57 PM

Darke Stanic Mills - 01 March 2012 12:28 PM

BrianLaudrup - 01 March 2012 12:08 PM

Absolutely gutted for the players and staff that are going to be made redundant today. I’m sitting with everything crossed that we can keep a hold of Steven Naismith and Jamie Ness on the playing side.

I’m wondering if anyone who was arguing that Scottish football could thrive without Rangers has had their opinion changed after the comments from Geoff Brown the St. Johnstone chairman or whats happening at Dunfermline?

To be fair, If Rangers hadn’t bumped them for £85k they might be in a better position.

Thats exactly the point. Without one lot of away tickets they can’t pay their players wages.

I’m taking no pleasure from this whatsoever but it is food for thought.

They would have compiled this season’s budget allowing for gate receipts from this game, if they then are not paid the monies that they could rightfully expect to receive, that is the problem.

Any future budgets can simply be adjusted to take account of the absence of 2 x gate reciept from RFC visits if neccessary.

szymm - 01 March 2012 01:02 PM

I must say I don’t understand this Arsenal shares hate

I don’t think that if you still had plenty money and sold them that you would even be the slightest bit bothered

The money really isn’t the issue, it’s part of the club’s history that this crook has sold away, besides, we didn’t even get the money from the sale, it went to one of Whyte’s other companies.

FieldMarshall85 - 01 March 2012 01:12 PM

szymm - 01 March 2012 01:02 PM

I must say I don’t understand this Arsenal shares hate

I don’t think that if you still had plenty money and sold them that you would even be the slightest bit bothered

The money really isn’t the issue, it’s part of the club’s history that this crook has sold away, besides, we didn’t even get the money from the sale, it went to one of Whyte’s other companies.

I understand that it’s not about the money what I’m saying is if there wasn’t all this hate being aimed at the club owners then I don’t think you would give a shit about them but it’s another stick to beat them with so you’re going to use it

szymm - 01 March 2012 01:16 PM

FieldMarshall85 - 01 March 2012 01:12 PM

szymm - 01 March 2012 01:02 PM

I must say I don’t understand this Arsenal shares hate

I don’t think that if you still had plenty money and sold them that you would even be the slightest bit bothered

The money really isn’t the issue, it’s part of the club’s history that this crook has sold away, besides, we didn’t even get the money from the sale, it went to one of Whyte’s other companies.

I understand that it’s not about the money what I’m saying is if there wasn’t all this hate being aimed at the club owners then I don’t think you would give a shit about them but it’s another stick to beat them with so you’re going to use it

Well look at it this way, most Newcastle fans are still livid about the stadium name which was part of our history, just like the shares in Arsenal are. I think if the shares were sold when the club was financially stable they’d still be pissed off!

szymm - 01 March 2012 01:16 PM

FieldMarshall85 - 01 March 2012 01:12 PM

szymm - 01 March 2012 01:02 PM

I must say I don’t understand this Arsenal shares hate

I don’t think that if you still had plenty money and sold them that you would even be the slightest bit bothered

The money really isn’t the issue, it’s part of the club’s history that this crook has sold away, besides, we didn’t even get the money from the sale, it went to one of Whyte’s other companies.

I understand that it’s not about the money what I’m saying is if there wasn’t all this hate being aimed at the club owners then I don’t think you would give a shit about them but it’s another stick to beat them with so you’re going to use it

I would have been upset if any person or group running the club had done this, the fact that Whyte done it just adds insult to injury, he has engineered the liquidation of my club, I really don’t need another stick to beat him with.