Claims the money Whyte loaned from Ticketus (£25 million) was already in one of Whyte's accountant's bank accounts before Whyte took over Rangers. Is Johnston talking pish here?
Alistair Johnston
- Thread starter Girvan Loyal 1690
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Cant see how Ticketus would give someone £25m before they actually owned the club
IM fairly sure they'd need to be sure he owned the club before they gave it to him.
Also, no offence like, but as its Rangers and the wold and its dog knows about the tax case hanging over you, Ticketus would have secured the money on Ibrox or Murray park. Again the take over would have had to be complete before this could be done
There's been so much ****e going about for the last year that you don't know who's talking pish and who's not
It wouldn't be the first time Johnston had lied though, it was him who first said the tax bill was to do with MIH and Rangers had nothing to worry about which obviously turned out to be pish
It wouldn't be the first time Johnston had lied though, it was him who first said the tax bill was to do with MIH and Rangers had nothing to worry about which obviously turned out to be pish
Personally, and I hope I'm right, all these ****s coming out with "dirt" on whyte have grudges against him and are merely acting out of petulance. If not then we're ****ed
I can't take Johnston seriously. He may well be telling the truth, but he was part of the old regime that ****ed up our finances. Not only is he in no position to criticise, but it just comes across as a case of sour grapes.
As he said himself, they would only ever do that if they had a secured creditor in place, so I either way it's not as disastrous as 1st made out, depending on who that person is of course.
While I understand Johnston's concerns, it does seem personal at times with him and Whyte. I don't think either is telling 100% the truth, and the problem is figuring out whats a porky and whats not.
no-one's head is in the sand. My thread questions a fairly major issue you putrid ****.
What's in it for Johnston (or John Greig) to tell lies? Why is it in Whyte's interest to tell the truth?
Whyte's a crook. Simple as that.
Lots of people said he was a crook before he took over Rangers. Lots of people said it when he took over the club and lots of people have been saying it ever since.
The events of the last few weeks have proved that the bloke is a shyster. He hired a PR team to deal with the press at the beginning where they were told just to refer to Whyte as "the billionaire". He made boasts to the press that there was a significant amount of money available to McCoist to buy players then we watched in amazement as player after player that Ally wanted to sign went to other clubs.
Throughout January, Ally was obviously led to believe that if he freed up funds and sold Jelavic he would be given money to find replacements. Well, he found out yesterday that that was just a hollow promise.
You have to question his reasons for taking over Rangers because it was never going to be a company that made a year on year profit. Was it altruism? Judging by what we know of his past it seems unlikely.
The best Rangers can look forward to is administration. At worse it's liquidation. What does Whyte get out of it?
Lots of people said he was a crook before he took over Rangers. Lots of people said it when he took over the club and lots of people have been saying it ever since.
The events of the last few weeks have proved that the bloke is a shyster. He hired a PR team to deal with the press at the beginning where they were told just to refer to Whyte as "the billionaire". He made boasts to the press that there was a significant amount of money available to McCoist to buy players then we watched in amazement as player after player that Ally wanted to sign went to other clubs.
Throughout January, Ally was obviously led to believe that if he freed up funds and sold Jelavic he would be given money to find replacements. Well, he found out yesterday that that was just a hollow promise.
You have to question his reasons for taking over Rangers because it was never going to be a company that made a year on year profit. Was it altruism? Judging by what we know of his past it seems unlikely.
The best Rangers can look forward to is administration. At worse it's liquidation. What does Whyte get out of it?
well if we're ****ed we're taking everyone down with us and I think you all know that deep down.
Well if Johnston and The Daily Record are lying I expect a libel case to be launched, same as when Whyte threatened to sue the BBC.................that seems not to have happened.
BBC Scotland last night claimed Rangers owner Craig Whyte was banned from being a director for seven years.
Last night, a spokesman for Whyte said: "Mr Whyte strenuously refutes these unfounded and defamatory allegations and has instructed his lawyers, Carter Ruck, to commence immediate legal proceedings against the BBC."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...ed-jail-over-directorship-ban-86908-23504069/
Rangers Football Club has confirmed its chairman and majority shareholder, Craig Whyte, was disqualified as a company director.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15976000
Last night, a spokesman for Whyte said: "Mr Whyte strenuously refutes these unfounded and defamatory allegations and has instructed his lawyers, Carter Ruck, to commence immediate legal proceedings against the BBC."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...ed-jail-over-directorship-ban-86908-23504069/
Rangers Football Club has confirmed its chairman and majority shareholder, Craig Whyte, was disqualified as a company director.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15976000
Was that bit the "10%" Whytey claimed was true?
Does that mean he never lived in Monaco or whit?
but the fact he was refuting was that he never worked as a director whilst his was disqualified which the BBC claimed