Talk:Craig Whyte/Archive 1

Vandalism

Some daft minded individual changed every reference of 'Rangers' to 'Celtic'. I'm guessing someone bitter. Either way, it's fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.185.81 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when

Since when were 'The Sun' and the 'Daily Record' reputable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username123456789 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why

Why isn't his wealth mentioned? Was up a couple of days ago but has since been taken off. Tim no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.40.163 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia entries must be sourced to reliable references. I have sourced and included what has been reported in the media about his wealth.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is his wealth not mentioned? Because he's not got any, would be my guess. --62.163.152.44 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Whyte is not a Billionaire

Traynor of Daily Record recently admitted on Radio Scotland that Whyte isn't a Billionaire. He said the Daily Record printed the claim because "everyone else did". He stated that he doesn't believe Whyte is a Billionaire.

Media watchers report that the Daily Record was actually the first to claim Whyte a Billionaire. Therefore, given Traynor's comments, there is no source that can be cited in claim of Billionaire status for Whyte.

Further, serious, objective followers of the Bain case, and the HRMC case, dismiss the possibility that Bain is a Billionaire. Stories have been published and documents leaked that show Whyte has (a) not cleared the bank debt (b) stated that he wont pay the 50M tax bill, should appeal fail.

A Billionaire who loves the club would have paid the bank debt, and would respectfully pay any monies due to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service.

There is simply no fair and balanced reason why you would declare Whyte a Billionaire in the face of all this.

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. Please don't corrupt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.112.16 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The reliable source given supports what's in the article about Whyte's wealth.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. The Herald article states that "Mr Whyte has built up a billion-pound empire". That doesn't necessarily mean that Craig Whyte has personal net worth of £1 billion. It could mean that he controls companies which have total assets of £1 billion, but those companies will have significant liabilities. Take Rangers F.C. itself; it has paper assets in excess of £100 million, which is mainly based on their accounting valuation of Ibrox Stadium. That doesn't mean Rangers is worth £100 million. In fact, a controlling interest in Rangers was sold this year for £1. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So Richard Branson has US$4.2 billion in his bank account does he? Same scenario with business and company assets. And i know what you're going to say that it has been listed in the sunday times rich list so it must be a fact. But then does that mean Noel Gallagher has no money whatsoever because he has never been listed in the same rich list? The herald is one of the most reliable sources we can reference to. There may be some more detail on Whyte's wealth in the future but i say go with what the source says. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the source material. It doesn't say that he is a billionaire. During his interview with STV on Thursday night, Whyte was asked whether he was a billionaire. He laughed at the notion. Regarding the two examples you give, Branson's wealth is directly sourced to Forbes, a reliable source specialising in that field. There is no assertion of Noel Gallagher's wealth. The point is part of WP:BLP; if you are making an assertion about an individual, as you are when you state Craig Whyte is worth £1 billion, then it is up to you provide clear material supporting that assertion. If we don't have that information (and Whyte is refusing to state his wealth in media interviews The Herald), then we shouldn't say anything at all. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this 'laughed off notion'. I have quickly searched for it and watched the stv interview. Still cant find it. The herald article says 'with more than a billion pounds worth of assets behind him'. In what way has this been misinterpreted? You seem intent on this being removed and also inclined to edit war over it which i am not going to be drawn into. So do as you wish. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

From watching the interview. Both the interviewer and Whyte were chuckling when the interviewer cited his wikipedia page, while asking what his personal wealth is. Whyte then refused to give a specific answer. The Herald article has been misinterpreted because saying that a group of businesses is a "billion-pound empire" does not necessarily mean the same thing as saying that the person who controls that group has net worth of £1 billion. You mentioned Richard Branson above. His Virgin Group has revenues in excess of £10 billion, while Branson's personal wealth is approximately £4 billion according to Forbes. The point is that if we are asserting something about a living individual, we have to have direct and reliable source material to support that assertion. That material does not yet exist with Craig Whyte. Making that kind of assertion without reliable supporting evidence in a prominent case like this brings the whole of wikipedia into disrepute. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am even more intrigued to see this interview you mention. Do you have a link? It is absolutely laughable for a journalist to cite wikipedia, shows just how poor a job they must be doing, why didnt they mention the herald article which directly quotes his assets? Like i have already said do as you wish i am not getting into an edit war with you. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was in the STV news programme from Thursday night. You still don't understand the point that The Herald article doesn't state what his assets are, it merely uses the tabloid-style phrase of "billion-pound empire". That could have a multitude of meanings - a billion pounds of assets, a billion pounds of revenue, a billion pounds of market capitalisation, a billion pounds of net assets. None of which would mean that Craig Whyte is a billionaire. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jmorrison230582, in the STV interview, both Craig Whyte and the interviewer (David Cowan) laughed about the wikipedia page claiming that Whyte was a billionaire, and the Herald's flippant use of the "billion-pound empire" phrase is certainly not a reliable source, nor does it even mean he has a personal wealth of a billion pounds. 87.194.155.130 (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is his net worth listed as only £1? That was the consideration for the purchase of the club, but far from his total wealth. it's even unreferenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HallucigeniaUK (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC Allegations

I should imagine there'll be a lot on this over coming months. I've updated the paragraph on the article - I'm not sure it it'll warrant that level of detail in the long term. Notably there are allegations (e.g. taking the £100,000 etc), and there are things which are provable which have just become apparent (e.g. his 7 year ban from directorships), and I think we have to strike that balance to keep the distinction clear. Marty jar (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Castle Grant

Could someone remove the reference to Mr Whyte 'owning' Castle Grant please? In the linked article it doesn't state that he owns them, merely that he moves between homes, one of which is Castle Grant. This does not automatically imply ownership, as the property could be used by Mr Whyte as a 'home' under a number of arrangements, many of which would not require ownership. The most common example of this would be if it were to be leased by Mr Whyte. As it is not stated under exactly what terms Mr Whyte is permitted usage of the property as a 'home', I do not believe it to reasonable to assume that Mr Whyte is, in fact, the owner of the property. MyStruggle (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: One source does not explicitly say he owns it, but does mention he spent five million restoring it, which would be unusual for any of the other arrangements. The other source does say he owns it. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is to say what the nature of the arrangement is? Maybe the lease includes a clause which stipulates a level of investment to be made? In light of the various sources, which state various states of affairs, is it not possible to at least mention in the article the conflict of opinion between these various sources? MyStruggle (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it would be unusual. If you find a source which says that he has a lease on the castle, we can include the conflict between that source and the present two sources. We can't present a conflict between how one might interpret a source and another source which is unambiguous. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

unlock page

Why have no huns edited this page since the BBC allegations (and more) all turned out to be true? We need the widely-reported details of the SFA inquiry which found him not a "fit and proper person", Details of the police investigation into his takeover, the legal action his own administrators are taking against him, the 50k fine from the stock exchange for failing to disclose his disqualifcation, details of him lying about the ticketus money, his lackey Gary Withey going to ground, him not paying ANY tax during his tenure, him squirelling away the Jevlavic £6m of which the administrators have "no visibility", him flogging off the Arsenal shares for a tawdry 200k which he personally trousered, the players all demanding release clauses if he ever tries to come back ... etc etc. The article as it stands is laughably one eyed/out of date. If no huns can bring themselves to add the relevant info then please unlock the page. 94.14.30.84 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no ability to edit this?

I don't understand why there is no ability to edit the details here. I can say with full knowledge that the authority for the statement that Craig Whyte is " chairman of a complex maze of interlinked firms from around the world thought to be worth more than £1 billion" is not justifiable. There is no proof anywhere that he is worth anywhere near this amount and should be deleted.

Why is there no ability to edit this?

I don't understand why there is no ability to edit the details here. I can say with full knowledge that the authority for the statement that Craig Whyte is " chairman of a complex maze of interlinked firms from around the world thought to be worth more than £1 billion" is not justifiable. There is no proof anywhere that he is worth anywhere near this amount and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwill96 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The page is protected due to persistent vandalism. Its WP:semi-protected only so Autoconfirmed users can edit the page freely. Edit requests can be made via the Template:Edit semi-protected. However the statement you are querying is backed up by a reliable source.[1]. It states Mr Whyte has built up a billion-pound empire through years of corporate recovery. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It also does not say he is. Its states his firms from around the world thought to be worth more than £1 billion.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)