PDA

View Full Version : Whyte or Murray?



Womble2011
21-04-2011, 12:20
Simple Question. Who do the majority prefer to takeover?

I'm still going with Whyte. Fresh Takeover. Rid of the dead wood on the board. Murrays way looks like to continue the way its going now. No thanks for this bear.

Poll to follow

plg_loyal
21-04-2011, 12:22
Honesty, i don't have a clue now.

Until we know the facts everyone is just guessing which options option would be best.

Valley Bluenose
21-04-2011, 12:23
This is the third one of these I've voted on now.

You need to make it clear you are talking about Paul Murray/Dave King and not SDM.

Womble2011
21-04-2011, 12:24
well that would be the neither option i would of thought?

Bill the Butcher
21-04-2011, 12:25
Simple Question. Who do the majority prefer to takeover?

I'm still going with Whyte. Fresh Takeover. Rid of the dead wood on the board. Murrays way looks like to continue the way its going now. No thanks for this bear.

Poll to follow

David Murray?

Paul Murray?

Totally misleading.

Manchester Bear_1872
21-04-2011, 12:25
It has to be shooter!

PartickGer
21-04-2011, 12:26
Wait while I get my crystal ball.

smidbob
21-04-2011, 12:28
Whoops! I immediately thought you meant David Murray and so voted neither. I like the idea of a shared ownership instead of one 'sugar daddy'

thebluenosebear
21-04-2011, 12:29
Are we going to have one of these everyday a new name is thrown into the mix, yesterday it was whyte or AJ.

None of us have a clue what is going on and why should we, we're only their customers.

Shambles, total shambles.

markymark
21-04-2011, 12:31
I'm drawn now, at first I wanted Whyte and the debt cleared and Lloyds kicked out, but with the thought of limited new faces and no extended deals for players, I am more swayed with the reports that with PMurray the debt dropping over a period of time and the reported 20million for new players and new deals for rest. BUT until either party fully tells us what they are really doing we will never know. lets just hope that 2 years down the line we arent still talking about it and the "what if's"

tazzabear
21-04-2011, 12:32
I voted for Murray as he seems to be carrying less baggage.
I suppose I don't really know what Whyte will do after the purchase but, and especially with the Ellis involvement, I don't trust him to to sell something important to us to get some money back.
I don't have same fear of Murray.
Rightly or wrongly

wc06
21-04-2011, 12:33
Whyte for me.My gut instinct tells me the Murray/King plan is horseshit.

Selkirkbear
21-04-2011, 12:36
Murray as I at least know to trust him.

chrisrfc52
21-04-2011, 12:37
paul murray dave king and douglas park bid.

Sir Duncan Ferguson
21-04-2011, 12:37
I don't trust Paul Murray or his crooked mate Dave King one little bit.

DavyMcK
21-04-2011, 12:37
Murray - better the devil you sort of know

Number_Eight
21-04-2011, 12:41
I'll take a chance on the devil I don't know.

I'm tired of the devils I already know.

I'll go for Whyte.

kenzieblueboy
21-04-2011, 12:44
it has to be murray as whyte does not have 2bob to rub together

bornslippy22
21-04-2011, 12:59
Murray for me.

watty200
21-04-2011, 13:33
Whyte for me. I think we need a clearout on the board.

Also, Paul Murray's 'solution' will not clear the debt. Who's to say that in 12 months time LTSB come knocking again for their money.

Womble2011
21-04-2011, 14:26
David Murray?

Paul Murray?

Totally misleading.

Well consider the latest news and the options aka "neither" which would indicate no one taking over and staying with DMurray.

Plus I did state "Who do you want to TAKEOVER". DMurray wouldnt be taking over would he?

Simples

SJP1873
21-04-2011, 16:06
Whyte, one of the choices has already put 28m in a bank waiting to clear the business right now. The other says he needs minimum of 4 weeks to pull the proposal together.

borders bear
21-04-2011, 16:28
Murray for me I think:confused:

RFC417
21-04-2011, 17:12
I voted neither because I do not know what the details of the offers are. There needs to be more information available.

Range-Rover
21-04-2011, 17:16
SDM accepts Whyte, The bank backs Whyte, and if, IF he does have the 52m, and the bank seem to accept the proof he has it, then why not Whyte.
I can't wait to get shot of the bank board member, when he goes then Rangers can start to function better.
Then there is the possibility, if we get Whyte as chairman, a true blue supporter, he might start defending us against all these ANTI Rangers factions, John Reid being the first one told where to go.

Jamesie83
21-04-2011, 17:17
Simple Question. Who do the majority prefer to takeover?

I'm still going with Whyte. Fresh Takeover. Rid of the dead wood on the board. Murrays way looks like to continue the way its going now. No thanks for this bear.

Poll to follow

From what I've read going with Whyte could mean continuing on the road we're going?

The debt would be wiped out, but with minimal investment in the playing staff.

RFC417
21-04-2011, 17:33
SDM accepts Whyte, The bank backs Whyte, and if, IF he does have the 52m, and the bank seem to accept the proof he has it, then why not Whyte.

Possibly because SDM and Lloyds getting what they want out of it is not sure to be the best for Rangers. Is it not the case that Whyte has said he will pay off the 2 sharks and have 5million annually available to fund Rangers FC? On paper it means the club will be very weak and the 2 organisations who have shafted us walk away laughing with their cash.

That is my worry, as I posted in the tax thread.

White can pay Lloyds in the for our debt, sweeten MIH (SDM) with a few m and pledge 5m a year of working capital to Rangers FC. But if Whyte's deal to purchase Rangers FC by paying off the 2 aforementioned organisations does not also take any possible tax implications into consideration then his offer is probably not as strong as he is making out.

Looking at what information I have seen leaked by 'Whyte sources' the only guys gaining from the deal could be Lloyds and SDM leaving Rangers goosed if the tax case goes wrong.

Likewise the Murray proposal. If him and his backers are willing to put in 25m, where does that leave the shareholding of SDM? Is that enough to dilute the MIH holding enough so they can take the club forward?

More info needs to be made available imo.

Jordan-rtid
21-04-2011, 17:42
Murray for me.

weebear
21-04-2011, 17:45
P Murray worked for D Murray, just hope he's not learned any dodgy tricks from him re finances and Moonbeams??

stefanovitch
21-04-2011, 18:51
Anyone (within reason) but David Murray!

burnleybank8463
21-04-2011, 19:00
As a punter looking on from the outside...


Craig Whyte

Pros:
I have generally been impressed with the approach of Whyte. Some factors that caught my eye were: (1), the reduction in club debt; (2), attention to detail paid in the diligence work; (3) lack of overly grandiose promises; (4) lack of media grand-standing and a certain level of discretion (in contrast to an earlier approach from Douglas Park I believe). These things all struck me as indicators of professionalism.

Cons:
I was a little concerned about a lack of details as to Whyte's actual (and current) business interests and "financial diesel power". Another element that I think stands against the Whyte proposal is the involvement of Ellis. I have nothing against Ellis personally, but he simply does not strike me as a "heavy hitter".

Overall:
Most probably, IF his proposal is substantive (based on real and verifiable substance), I would probably be amenable to it. Of course, it all depends on the exact details and how it would work for the club.


Paul Murray and Dave King

Pros:
As far as I am aware, King contributed a sizeable "investment" into Rangers in the 90's, which would of course reflect very well on him from a Rangers perspective. He is known to the club.

Cons:
Similarly to Whyte, I know little of the actual (and current) business interests Paul Murray and Dave King, or, again, their "financial diesel power". Also, I was not entirely impressed with the rumoured nature of the proposal as presented in some of the papers recently -- at best, it seemed a little "murky", and prone to bluster. King's tax/legal issues with the South African government are a concern to me also. (On the other hand, I have read on here recently that he has largely addressed these issues. At present, I will remain sceptical on that front until I see clear evidence to the contrary.)


Generally

Generally speaking, I have no preference based on personality -- it is who can offer to be the best and most "heavy hitting" owner of Rangers that counts.

The things I am looking for in a prospective owner are:

(1) financial stability + security;
(2) maintenance of a high quality squad of first-team players and a quality sporting structure at all levels;
(3) expertise in using legal + financial services to adress the HMRC tax case;
(4) expertise in addressing "financial attacks" on the club when they may arise -- again, most probably using legal services (I would place the recent UEFA issues into this last category).


The Role of AJ

One final point: I think that AJ has acted with professionalism so far, and generally believe that he is acting under the remit of upholding Rangers' best interests. On that note, I was annoyed to read what seemed to be "hit piece" on him on RangersMedia recently (by an anonymous writer calling himself "Boss").

adastra
21-04-2011, 19:38
Its the Murray/King/Park consortium for me and to be honest, I've long held the belief its the only real show in town. Somebody stated earlier that Whyte is a 'true blue', I've seen little evidence to prove this. However we know the other 3s Rangers credentials, indeed I have seen Mr Murray's joining the rank and file downtown for a beer or 2 on many an overseas adventure and he has clearly put his personal money into the youth development fund before.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Murray/King/Park consortium is driven by a love and passion for Rangers FC and they know there is no money to be made from it, the Whyte/Ellis team does not shout the same for me and I have serious misgivings about their longterm plans and how they see themselves making money from Rangers. If anybody thinks that 5million a season for 5 seasons sorts the current mess out then they need a reality check.

broxburnranger
21-04-2011, 20:20
why dont they get together, get rid of sdm, clear the debt, do a share issue, sort out what needs done re the stadium, maybe sell the naming rights(no matter who gives us the money, it'll still be ibrox to us)then fix the team . all done without putting too much financial strain on one party. to quote delboy "everyone's a winner"