The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Brandt]

So can we work out how much this will save Rangers roughly then?

 

If MacGregor is on ?26k a week that reduces to ?6500 a week or ?26k a month. The other high earners will be on less than that but to make it easier for Rangers lets just use these figure for the 5 or so high earners. A saving of ?390k a month.

 

Lets say a mid earner is on ?14k a week (Alexander)?

This reduces to 7k and if we say there are about 12 players in this area then they will be saving a further ?336k savings per month.

 

Finally the lower earners would be on maybe ?5k (very generous).

 

Lets say another 12 players at this level taking just a 15% hit or ?750 a week. This equates to only another ?36k of savings a month.

 

 

This brings us to a total saving of ?762000 per month. ?238000 short of the magic million.

And those were with very generous wages.

 

Was it just on playing staff only? Sorry if its mentioned somewhere that it is Even then, to raise the rest of the amount must take a massive amount of cuts!

Edited March 5, 2012 by spunkmeyer

[Beverley]

Was it just on playing staff only? Sorry if its mentioned somewhere that it is Even then, to raise the rest of the amount must take a massive amount of cuts!

 

hmm, and aunt sally is working for free now, also lafferty?

[Victorian]

Once more into the Bears Den my friends...

 

"I don't know about the rest of you guys but I have absolutely had it with the relentless hate-filled assaults on our club from the small minded Septic-supporing mhedia and all their pals throughout Scottish football.

 

What have we actually done that's such a crime against football? It seems to me that, at worst, we paid players a bit extra via a tax avoidance scheme that was sold to us by financial experts that were paid to advise us on such matters. We're talking about paperwork and administrative issues here. We've had TEN points deducted, effectively ending our title campaign ffs! What more do these scumbags want?

 

Let's see how they cope without us - time to pull out all the stops to get into the English league, even if that means starting in the Conference.

 

**** em all"

 

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=213021

 

 

See ya later then.

 

Fud.

 

suffice to say that the author of that spectacular insight is very much in the category of 'just doesn't get it'. one of king william's faceless cast of thousands.

 

psychotic.

[Brandt]

hmm, and aunt sally is working for free now, also lafferty?

Substitutes selling the pies, im guessing

[The Mighty Thor]

Once more into the Bears Den my friends...

 

"I don't know about the rest of you guys but I have absolutely had it with the relentless hate-filled assaults on our club from the small minded Septic-supporing mhedia and all their pals throughout Scottish football.

 

What have we actually done that's such a crime against football? It seems to me that, at worst, we paid players a bit extra via a tax avoidance scheme that was sold to us by financial experts that were paid to advise us on such matters. We're talking about paperwork and administrative issues here. We've had TEN points deducted, effectively ending our title campaign ffs! What more do these scumbags want?

 

Let's see how they cope without us - time to pull out all the stops to get into the English league, even if that means starting in the Conference.

 

**** em all"

 

http://forum.rangers...howtopic=213021

 

 

See ya later then.

 

Fud.

 

The cornered rats are getting more and more desperate

 

The penny will drop at some stage

[...a bit disco]

suffice to say that the author of that spectacular insight is very much in the category of 'just doesn't get it'. one of king william's faceless cast of thousands.

 

psychotic.

 

Indeed.

 

"We're talking about paperwork and administrative issues here."

 

 

Wasn't that Fred Goodwins excuse too?

[Diadora Van Basten]

Breaking on SSN: Rangers highest earners offer to take 75% pay cut Mid Earners 50% and lower earners 15%....so....something we already knew???

 

Hopefully their player's wives are as understanding as Ryan Stevenson's wife and tell them to shove it.

[Victorian]

Indeed.

 

"We're talking about paperwork and administrative issues here."

 

 

Wasn't that Fred Goodwins excuse too?

 

in a way he's right.

 

the taxation paperwork was diddled...

 

they're now in admin as a result...

 

maybe he DOES get it.

[...a bit disco]

Hopefully their player's wives are as understanding as Ryan Stevenson's wife and tell them to shove it.

 

"I've got a nice, big house. I've got two nice cars, including a Bentley, and I'm test-driving a Porsche.

 

"Tori and I have nice clothes and we eat in nice restaurants most nights.

 

"Only I know how much I'm earning at Rangers and I've got good people looking after me."

 

 

 

 

And who said that?

 

 

 

 

[PsychocAndy]

hughesie27, on 05 March 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

So can we work out how much this will save Rangers roughly then?

 

If MacGregor is on ?26k a week that reduces to ?6500 a week or ?26k a month. The other high earners will be on less than that but to make it easier for Rangers lets just use these figure for the 5 or so high earners. A saving of ?390k a month.

 

Lets say a mid earner is on ?14k a week (Alexander)?

This reduces to 7k and if we say there are about 12 players in this area then they will be saving a further ?336k savings per month.

 

Finally the lower earners would be on maybe ?5k (very generous).

 

Lets say another 12 players at this level taking just a 15% hit or ?750 a week. This equates to only another ?36k of savings a month.

 

 

This brings us to a total saving of ?762000 per month. ?238000 short of the magic million.

And those were with very generous wages.

 

 

So McGregor's understudy will be getting ?500 more than McGregor for sitting on his farter. I wouldn't be pleased with that if I were him.

 

Sorry Hughesie in my joy I didn't read it right and thought these figures were true and not an approximation

Edited March 5, 2012 by PsychocAndy

[VALDOS]

What I find strange about this whole thing is that Whyte appointed these Administrators and he also had one of his lawyers Gary Withey implanted as Rangers Company Secretary and yet Duff and Phelps keep saying they are trying to idetify where the missing ?5million went.

 

I've got a great idea why don't they just ask their pal Craig Whyte

The plot thickens.....

Rangers FC company secretary Gary Withey has left Collyer Bristow for ?family and personal reasons?, the firm has confirmed.

 

Withey, a partner at the firm, had become embroiled in the Glasgow football club?s administration, after advising businessman Craig Whyte on his takeover of the club last year.

 

Collyer Bristow has confirmed that Withey left the partnership and the firm on 1 March and that the firm does not know of his whereabouts.

 

?We?ve been in contact with him and he is no longer a partner of the firm,? a Collyer Bristow spokesperson said.

 

The spokesperson said that the firm has been in e-mail contact with Withey for the past 10 days, but had not made any attempts to trace his location using his IP address.

 

It is understood that Withey did not attend a meeting on 29 February, the day before his membership of the firm ended.

 

Meanwhile, Taylor Wessing restructuring partner Nick Benson and Mark Phillips QC and Daniel Bayfield at South Square Chambers have won roles for Rangers? administrators, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse at Duff & Phelps, on a successful application to the High Court to transfer ?3.6m in client money from Collyer Bristow to Taylor Wessing.

 

Duff & Phelps said in a statement: ?We can confirm that following the court hearing Collyer Bristow paid approximately ?3.6m to our lawyers, Taylor Wessing, to be held securely by Taylor Wessing until the High Court decides whether or not it is the club?s money.

 

?Collyer Bristow will also disclose to Taylor Wessing details of the payments of funds out of their account on behalf of the club since May 2011. The High Court in London will hear further representations on the administrators? claim to the money and our request for further information from Collyer Bristow on 8 March 2012.?

 

Duff & Phelps has already hired Scottish firm Biggart Baillie as legal advisers on the administration (15 February 2012).

[The Mighty Thor]

"I've got a nice, big house. I've got two nice cars, including a Bentley, and I'm test-driving a Porsche.

 

"Tori and I have nice clothes and we eat in nice restaurants most nights.

 

"Only I know how much I'm earning at Rangers and I've got good people looking after me."

 

 

 

 

And who said that?

 

 

 

 

 

I don't grudge him it at all.

 

He's a wonderful guy and a great human being.

 

:'>

[jambos are go!]

So can we work out how much this will save Rangers roughly then?

 

If MacGregor is on ?26k a week that reduces to ?6500 a week or ?26k a month. The other high earners will be on less than that but to make it easier for Rangers lets just use these figure for the 5 or so high earners. A saving of ?390k a month.

 

Lets say a mid earner is on ?14k a week (Alexander)?

This reduces to 7k and if we say there are about 12 players in this area then they will be saving a further ?336k savings per month.

 

Finally the lower earners would be on maybe ?5k (very generous).

 

Lets say another 12 players at this level taking just a 15% hit or ?750 a week. This equates to only another ?36k of savings a month.

 

 

This brings us to a total saving of ?762000 per month. ?238000 short of the magic million.

And those were with very generous wages.

You are assuming all the savings come from player wages and dont appear to have accounted for national insurance contributions.There will savings from other areas of the business surely such as non playing staff(like Gordon Smith) and admin overheads.

[hughesie27]

hughesie27, on 05 March 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

So can we work out how much this will save Rangers roughly then?

 

If MacGregor is on ?26k a week that reduces to ?6500 a week or ?26k a month. The other high earners will be on less than that but to make it easier for Rangers lets just use these figure for the 5 or so high earners. A saving of ?390k a month.

 

Lets say a mid earner is on ?14k a week (Alexander)?

This reduces to 7k and if we say there are about 12 players in this area then they will be saving a further ?336k savings per month.

 

Finally the lower earners would be on maybe ?5k (very generous).

 

Lets say another 12 players at this level taking just a 15% hit or ?750 a week. This equates to only another ?36k of savings a month.

 

 

This brings us to a total saving of ?762000 per month. ?238000 short of the magic million.

And those were with very generous wages.

 

 

So McGregor's understudy will be getting ?500 more than McGregor for sitting on his farter. I wouldn't be pleased with that if I were him.

 

Sorry Hughesie in my joy I didn't read it right and thought these figures were true and not an approximation

I'm pretty sure it was widely reported that McGregor was on ?26k a week when he singed his latest deal. And it I am sure Alexander was on ?14 a week according to a few on here.

[portobellojambo1]

So can we work out how much this will save Rangers roughly then?

 

If MacGregor is on ?26k a week that reduces to ?6500 a week or ?26k a month. The other high earners will be on less than that but to make it easier for Rangers lets just use these figure for the 5 or so high earners. A saving of ?390k a month.

 

Lets say a mid earner is on ?14k a week (Alexander)?

This reduces to 7k and if we say there are about 12 players in this area then they will be saving a further ?336k savings per month.

 

Finally the lower earners would be on maybe ?5k (very generous).

 

Lets say another 12 players at this level taking just a 15% hit or ?750 a week. This equates to only another ?36k of savings a month.

 

 

This brings us to a total saving of ?762000 per month. ?238000 short of the magic million.

And those were with very generous wages.

 

This offer has been rejected by the players, and by all accounts the first to say no was Allan McGregor. I think he had quickly worked out that a reduction of 75% of his salary of ?26,300 would mean he would be taking home less than a player presently earning ?15,000 a week, who would only have to take a 50% cut. The highest earner at Ibrox at the moment is Steve Davis, on ?28k per week, then McGregor on ?26.3k, then Whittaker on ?20k. The rest are earning less than ?20k, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that with a first team playing squad of 26 (according to Rangers fans on Saturday) the vast majority of them are going to have to go, if they are unwilling to accept wage cuts.

 

The main thing I didn't understand about this offer put to them, if I read it correctly on the BBC website at lunchtime, is that it would only be for one month, as they appear convinced someone is going to step up to the plate and put a massive offer on the table for the club prior to the deadline of 16 March.

 

Just said during commentary of the ESPN game between Dundee United and ICT that the latest offer put to the players by the administrators has been rejected, and a counter offer is on the table from the players (I didn't realise these things were meant to be run as a lottery I thought the administrators came in, made decisions, sorted out the finance and moved on, but this whole thing doesn't seem to be getting done in that manner, there are offers and counter offers (all of which suggests the players are very unwilling to budge an inch) and a decision (another decision) will be made tomorrow morning.

[hughesie27]

You are assuming all the savings come from player wages and dont appear to have accounted for national insurance contributions.There will savings from other areas of the business surely such as non playing staff(like Gordon Smith) and admin overheads.

No I was merely pointing out what they would be saving with this deal. Using generous wages.

[i wish jj was my dad]

This whole thing with the administrators is getting beyond a joke.

 

surely their responsibility is to the creditors, specifically the taxpayer in this case, not to maintain the lifestyles of McGregor and Lafferty

[hughesie27]

This offer has been rejected by the players, and by all accounts the first to say no was Allan McGregor. I think he had quickly worked out that a reduction of 75% of his salary of ?26,300 would mean he would be taking home less than a player presently earning ?15,000 a week, who would only have to take a 50% cut. The highest earner at Ibrox at the moment is Steve Davis, on ?28k per week, then McGregor on ?26.3k, then Whittaker on ?20k. The rest are earning less than ?20k, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that with a first team playing squad of 26 (according to Rangers fans on Saturday) the vast majority of them are going to have to go, if they are unwilling to accept wage cuts.

 

The main thing I didn't understand about this offer put to them, if I read it correctly on the BBC website at lunchtime, is that it would only be for one month, as they appear convinced someone is going to step up to the plate and put a massive offer on the table for the club prior to the deadline of 16 March.

 

Just said during commentary of the ESPN game between Dundee United and ICT that the latest offer put to the players by the administrators has been rejected, and a counter offer is on the table from the players (I didn't realise these things were meant to be run as a lottery I thought the administrators came in, made decisions, sorted out the finance and moved on, but this whole thing doesn't seem to be getting done in that manner, there are offers and counter offers (all of which suggests the players are very unwilling to budge an inch) and a decision (another decision) will be made tomorrow morning.

 

My post is the new offer buddy. According to breaking news on Sky Sports at about half 6.

[VALDOS]

This whole thing with the administrators is getting beyond a joke.

 

surely their responsibility is to the creditors, specifically the taxpayer in this case, not to maintain the lifestyles of McGregor and Lafferty

There's no priority for the tax payer, it is simply to find methods of paying all interested parties. There must be discussions going on, they have been there too long to have discussed nothing more than wage cuts.

[Victorian]

This whole thing with the administrators is getting beyond a joke.

 

surely their responsibility is to the creditors, specifically the taxpayer in this case, not to maintain the lifestyles of McGregor and Lafferty

 

by a pro rata basis, the administrators appear to have spunked ?750,000 on a three-week exercise of pandering to rangers players, and possibly their moronic supporters, by sitting on their hands.

 

i hope there's a recourse open to people to have this investigated.

[i wish jj was my dad]

by a pro rata basis, the administrators appear to have spunked ?750,000 on a three-week exercise of pandering to rangers players, and possibly their moronic supporters, by sitting on their hands.

 

i hope there's a recourse open to people to have this investigated.

 

As taxpayers, we must hope that HMRC will be looking at this very closely indeed.

[VALDOS]

 

 

The main thing I didn't understand about this offer put to them, if I read it correctly on the BBC website at lunchtime, is that it would only be for one month, as they appear convinced someone is going to step up to the plate and put a massive offer on the table for the club prior to the deadline of 16 March.

 

 

I think the administrators have more confidence in recovering funds from Whytes lawyers, rather than relying on a takeover.

[The Gasman]

by a pro rata basis, the administrators appear to have spunked ?750,000 on a three-week exercise of pandering to rangers players, and possibly their moronic supporters, by sitting on their hands.

 

....and appear to have given one unsecured creditor (Dunfermline) priority over all other claims, and a 100% settlement.

[Victorian]

As taxpayers, we must hope that HMRC will be looking at this very closely indeed.

 

yep. if anyone can push the right buttons it will be HMRC.

 

....and appear to have given one unsecured creditor (Dunfermline) priority over all other claims, and a 100% settlement.

 

saw that. it's an eyebrow raiser. how does that stack up legally?

[The Real Maroonblood]

Once more into the Bears Den my friends...

 

"I don't know about the rest of you guys but I have absolutely had it with the relentless hate-filled assaults on our club from the small minded Septic-supporing mhedia and all their pals throughout Scottish football.

 

What have we actually done that's such a crime against football? It seems to me that, at worst, we paid players a bit extra via a tax avoidance scheme that was sold to us by financial experts that were paid to advise us on such matters. We're talking about paperwork and administrative issues here. We've had TEN points deducted, effectively ending our title campaign ffs! What more do these scumbags want?

 

Let's see how they cope without us - time to pull out all the stops to get into the English league, even if that means starting in the Conference.

 

**** em all"

 

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=213021

 

 

See ya later then.

 

Fud.

The roaster comes from Edinburgh.

[portobellojambo1]

I think the administrators have more confidence in recovering funds from Whytes lawyers, rather than relying on a takeover.

 

Is it not a case that any money that is being released, such as the ?3.6 million placed on account today, not being frozen though Valdos, rather than transferred to Rangers for immediate use. It appears any money that is found will then have to go through court proceedings for a decision to be made on who it belongs to, so it is money they cannot use at the moment. I would imagine they would also have to take into consideration that the court might not find in Rangers favour, and they would be no further forward, but potentially a lot worse off (given no salary savings would be made during the interim period).

Edited March 5, 2012 by portobellojambo1

[jamboinglasgow]

Is it not a case that any money that is being frozen, such as the ?3.6 million placed on account today, not being frozen though Valdos, rather than transferred to Rangers for immediate use. It appears any money that is found will then have to go through court proceedings for a decision to be made on who it belongs to, so it is money they cannot use at the moment. I would imagine they would also have to take into consideration that the court might not find in Rangers favour, and they would be no further forward, but potentially a lot worse off (given no salary savings would be made during the interim period).

 

Also this money may be needed to pay off creditors.

[VALDOS]

As taxpayers, we must hope that HMRC will be looking at this very closely indeed.

I think it would be naive to think that HMRC are not watching everything that's going on right now. They will be in talks with the administrators as they are still trying to negotiate a pence in the pound deal. If that ball of wind Traynor is right, the administrators want any deal with HMRC to carry on into the big tax case outcome. Edited March 5, 2012 by VALDOS

[vintage1874]

....and appear to have given one unsecured creditor (Dunfermline) priority over all other claims, and a 100% settlement.

 

Dunfy chairman was on sportsound seems Rangers will be paying it up over a period of time. what about us and united not to mention HMRC

 

 

yep. if anyone can push the right buttons it will be HMRC.

 

 

 

saw that. it's an eyebrow raiser. how does that stack up legally?

 

Good point. These administrators have a fishy reek about them it's not the way admins usually go about their job usually have no mercy trying to save money in order to pay creditors.

Even the money in the solicitors account will probably not be enough to cover rangers costs for rest of the season.

 

 

 

[VALDOS]

Is it not a case that any money that is being released, such as the ?3.6 million placed on account today, not being frozen though Valdos, rather than transferred to Rangers for immediate use. It appears any money that is found will then have to go through court proceedings for a decision to be made on who it belongs to, so it is money they cannot use at the moment. I would imagine they would also have to take into consideration that the court might not find in Rangers favour, and they would be no further forward, but potentially a lot worse off (given no salary savings would be made during the interim period).

Thats is correct, they are saying they will have an answer to this initial money (3.6mill) by the 8th. The administrators said this would be too late to save wage cuts though.

[portobellojambo1]

My post is the new offer buddy. According to breaking news on Sky Sports at about half 6.

 

But that was the offer that was already on the table was it not, or certainly it was what I read at lunchtime, and then heard that the players had rejected it. From what they were saying during the commentary on ESPN the administrators did say the players have put a counter offer on the table, but I wouldn't imagine it would be the same offer they had already rejected earlier in the day.

[Floyd]

What about the pregnant wives, unborn children and most importantly the car payments?

 

Who is thinking of them........

[albishop]

If that is correct, regarding the Dunfermline chairman, the he should remember Murray's stance with Airdrie.

 

Screw them for every last penny. They had no conscience when they were cheating their way to titles and cups.

[jamboinglasgow]

Saw an interesting bit on this report of todays events

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/299849-rangers-players-make-final-plea-over-jobs/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

 

Mr Clark also confirmed that the administrators were not in a position to impose wage cuts on the playing staff.

 

He concluded: "For clarity, we cannot enforce wage cuts. The players have to agree to this course of action. The players have asked us to consider a final proposal overnight for discussion in the morning and we have agreed to this request."

 

:interesting:

[The Old Tolbooth]

 

saw that. it's an eyebrow raiser. how does that stack up legally?

I would imagine it doesn't

 

 

Still, a benefit match between Portsmouth and Rangers will solve everything

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17260613

 

[davesmith]

Saw an interesting bit on this report of todays events

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/299849-rangers-players-make-final-plea-over-jobs/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

 

Mr Clark also confirmed that the administrators were not in a position to impose wage cuts on the playing staff.

 

He concluded: "For clarity, we cannot enforce wage cuts. The players have to agree to this course of action. The players have asked us to consider a final proposal overnight for discussion in the morning and we have agreed to this request."

 

:interesting:

 

 

Not really. Standard employment law. You cannot force anyone to take a pay cut. If they refuse however you can then make them redundant. It's not uncommon for companies in the doo doo financially to ask staff to take a cut prior to making redundancies.

 

It seems to me the administrators have an acceptable wage figure in mind and are working with the players to reach that. As you would expect the players dont want a cut.

 

I think tomorrow will be hard line sign up or go message.

[Victorian]

I would imagine it doesn't

 

 

Still, a benefit match between Portsmouth and Rangers will solve everything

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17260613

 

 

 

now that's crass. pompey paupers versus 'we arra poor peepul'.

 

the battle of skid row.

[The Old Tolbooth]

 

now that's crass. pompey paupers versus 'we arra poor peepul'.

 

the battle of skid row.

:lol:

 

I hope it's a two legged affair because getting the money out of the home team if it's not will be a nightmare

[Victorian]

:lol:

 

I hope it's a two legged affair because getting the money out of the home team if it's not will be a nightmare

 

 

oh the mistrust.

[...a bit disco]

I take it I'm not the only one to spot the irony in this pic?

 

 

[CocoBear]

The way things are shaping up with the parasitic weegies for me is they are being assisted every step of the way in order to hold onto players that can yield some transfer money within a few weeks rather than pay them of now. No other club would get such dispensation like they seem to be getting just now.

[A Boy Named Crow]

I've been making this point from the day CW placed them in administration.

 

The balance of power is about to change.

 

I know what you are saying, and I used to believe it. Listen to all the noises coming out of the other clubs and the media right now though, Rangers WILL come out of his smelling of roses. Even if the newco gets some kind of points deduction for a while, give it ten years and we'll be back where we started.

 

More and more I am begining to believe that football, certainly Scottish football needs to go bust. It's the only way you will get rid of the "money men". Only when they are gone will you see any kind of progressive thinking in the game. I am not sying this will be painless, and it's likely (inevitable) that we will lose clubs along the way, but I honestly believe it has to happen. The "product" (I hate that ponsey term) will be awful, but the game could become much more fan focussed, teams would rely on bringing young players through the ranks or knackered old pros trying to scratch the last days out their careers. There would be no superstars, but at the same time, who really cares? Scottish fitba is just about going to get bevvied with your mates, and hoping that our diddies beat their diddies. You don't need to pay somebody 10k a week to be one of your diddies do you? Seriously, the game needs financial meltdown. Hopefully what's left afterwards will make more sense than the farce that we pay to witness now.

[The Real Maroonblood]

:lol:

 

I hope it's a two legged affair because getting the money out of the home team if it's not will be a nightmare

Will David Murray get one.

[desmondo]

The way things are shaping up with the parasitic weegies for me is they are being assisted every step of the way in order to hold onto players that can yield some transfer money within a few weeks rather than pay them of now. No other club would get such dispensation like they seem to be getting just now.

 

 

Celtic would

[wibble]

The admins are just biding as much time as possible for Whytes benefit. He will want to liquidate after the BTC verdict so he can blame Murray. The pretense until then will be that he wants survival.

The Phoenix plans will be lined up and prospectus will be prepared already.

Never forget that these admins are Whytes bidders.

[One flew over]

Did you miss the 120 page thread or just feel like opening a new one to add no insight or no breaking news?

[JamboSean]

Will David Murray get one.

[wibble]

There will be a fans share flotation of the newco (non voting shares), Whyte will tail the lot. Then sold to the highest bidder.

[A Boy Named Crow]

There will be a fans share flotation of the newco (non voting shares), Whyte will tail the lot. Then sold to the highest bidder.

 

I think this could be the best possible outcome. If Whyte is involved with the newco then HMRC will have their bawz for the tax owed. As per my post above though, I just don't see them not surviving this...

[buzzbomb]

Bang on. That's his game.

 

 

The admins are just biding as much time as possible for Whytes benefit. He will want to liquidate after the BTC verdict so he can blame Murray. The pretense until then will be that he wants survival.

The Phoenix plans will be lined up and prospectus will be prepared already.

Never forget that these admins are Whytes bidders.