Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable?


Sleep has become a precious and rare commodity in recent weeks and I find myself trying to pry my eyes open to absorb the details of a data-packed Excel spreadsheet. For any normal, well-adjusted person, thoughts of forcing one’s eyes to move cell-to-cell, checking formula-after-formula, deep into the small hours of the morning would evoke a dystopian nightmare from A Clockwork Orange. However, this is not just any spreadsheet. This material has me transfixed. Commonsense says “leave it until the morning”, but I cannot sleep.

This is Rangers’ cashflow projection for season 2011/2012.

Naturally, I cannot disclose the origin of the data in the spreadsheet. However, I have confidence in its authenticity and its accuracy. I believe that it portrays genuine insight into Rangers’ cash flows for the current season. While I anonymise the data and figure out a way of presenting it on a blog, I will just give you the conclusions.

  • Rangers FC face a cash shortfall by the end of this season of about £19m
  • Without a fresh cash injection, Rangers will run out of money in October / November

And most significantly:

  • Without a fresh cash injection-

Rangers will be insolvent before the result of the EBT tax case is even known

Whyte’s new-found candour has him admitting that there is a crisis at Rangers, and that insolvency is a distinct possibility. However, it is tempered with the narrative that he inherited a mess. Any crisis, according to Whyte, is a result of the EBT dispute with HMRC which goes back to a time before owning Rangers was even a gleam in his eye. Whyte has started to spin insolvency as drawing a line underneath the club’s longterm problems. His hints that he might not appeal a decision against Rangers in the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) could be a clue to his real strategy.

To blame the previous regime at Ibrox requires that insolvency can be staved off until the judges sitting on the FTT return with their findings. However, Mr. Whyte will probably be mistaken if he thinks that the tribunal will return a result within a few days of it concluding. An insolvency event prior to that point would reveal the nature of the immediate problem: Rangers’ failure to qualify for the Champions’ League group stages. The arrestment of almost £3m by HMRC and Bain & McIntyre (ex-directors) intensifies matters.

Readers of the replies section of this blog will be aware of the complicated permutations that face Whyte. Delaying an insolvency filing to beyond 60 days after an arrestment weakens the claims of a secured creditor (himself) to reclaim that cash. Delay also requires Whyte to up the ante and provide additional working capital. In return, his reputation would survive the mauling that would accompany a filing without an adverse result in the FTT to hide behind. Whyte also faces uncertainty over the timing of a response from the judges. If Rangers maintain a staunch defence to the end, it is possible that the FTT findings might not be published until February or March 2012. That would require pouring in more cash to survive to this point. (Surely Whyte would not countenance “throwing the game” in the last days of the tribunal to arrive at a speedy conclusion?)

It is worth explaining cash flow for anyone who has not spent much time thinking about the monetary needs of a football club, it is extremely uneven. Cash accumulates over the summer months as season ticket holders renew in great numbers and drops over the autumn as players are paid their monthly salaries and bonuses. A good European run bolsters cash receipts in the short evenings and if post-Christmas European football is on the calendar, then a good season is had by all. Without significant European cash after September, Rangers (like Celtic) face a long period of outgoings being in excess of incoming cash. This funding gap can only be filled by a bank overdraft (short-term debt), a loan, or with the shareholders throwing in more equity. Traditionally, Rangers (and Celtic) have dipped into their overdraft facilities to pay wages and other bills during the months of negative cashflow. There is a problem this season however: Rangers do not have a credit facility with any bank.

Since buying Rangers’ debt to Lloyds Banking Group (who were desperate to escape from the headache of being Rangers’ primary creditor), Whyte has failed to open another line of credit. It would appear that no bank wants to lend to a club facing crippling tax bills or one that has a fan base who will organise a boycott if it has the nerve to ask for its money back. (While discussing Rangers’ debt, a much forgotten fact is that Lloyds were not Rangers’ only creditor. An additional £4m in creditors is still on Rangers’ books bringing to total debt to about £22m when we include the money owed to the club’s parent company).

Are Rangers facing imminent insolvency? If Whyte, or his backers, decide to pour in cash to delay the filing then obviously not. Without additional cash infusions insolvency seems inevitable within the next month.

In coming posts, we shall examine the cash flow projections for Rangers in more detail and ask some of the questions that naturally follow about this case:

Did Whyte really just gamble on Rangers qualifying for the Champions’ League group stages? Was insolvency part of Whyte’s plan from the beginning? How can Whyte hope to make a profit from his £18m + £1 investment in Rangers?

As this blog has maintained from the outset, the story being parlayed from the top of the marble staircase does not make sense. We now have a few more pieces of the jigsaw and will be able to make more sense of this case as time goes on.

In the meantime, I need some sleep.

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications are for one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

442 Responses to Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable?

  1. TheBlackKnight says:

    Lord Wobbly says:
    26/10/2011 at 12:00 am
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Milk? I think you need to speak to Mark.”

    Thought he had the spoon ?

  2. DeRichleau says:

    On the UEFA licence issue, according to Phil’s post, the “small tax bill” was only issued “on or about 2nd June 2011.” That would mean that the bill was not overdue as at 31st March – therefore SFA could quite properly have issued a licence surely?

    That would leave the question of whether RFC breached the terms of Article 66 – ” No overdue payables towards employees and/or social/tax authorities – Enhanced”

    According to Annex VIII of the UEFA rules, a sum is only overdue if it has not been paid “according to the agreed terms.”

    Article 66 requires the club to prove that there are no overdue sums which have accrued between 31st March and the 30th of June. So would the question then not become by which date did HMRC require the “small tax bill” to be paid? If its some time after the 30th of June, then its not overdue?

  3. Lord Wobbly says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    26/10/2011 at 12:20 am
    Lord Wobbly says:
    26/10/2011 at 12:00 am
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Milk? I think you need to speak to Mark.”
    Thought he had the spoon ?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I thought you’d gone to bed!

  4. Lord Wobbly says:

    A question before I go to bed. Do I need to ask for Friday off? I wouldn’t want to miss a thing and having to work really gets in the way of my entertainment. Answers by, say, lunchtime tomorrow, if you please folks.

  5. sannabhoy says:

    Goosy ,

    the blogger seems to be slightly more open and willing to consider the unpalatable – i notice even he can’t voice the SFL3 conclusion.

    On another note , is the first comment correct ? Has CW been director of 37 (thirty-seven in a ‘World of Sport’ style) failed companies ? that’s how many titles Rangers has won before the skewing of the process (c Auldheid) begun in 1985.

    Sanna_

  6. Auldheid says:

    DeRichleau says:

    26/10/2011 at 12:21 am

    The wee bill was discovered under due diligence and provision for it was made on 1st April in Rangers accounts so it was a bill at least from 1st April. Those accounts were delayed btw until 1st April. RTC blogged at the time in April it’s existence was known to Rangers before April which ties in with the due diligence period. This is from an Evenin Times article of 5th/6th Sept

    The following was taken from an article in the Glasgow Evening Times of 5th/6th Sept.

    ( http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/editor-s-picks/rangers-sued-by-law-firm-over-unpaid-bill-1.1122032 )

    The latest financial woes to hit the Scottish champions emerged as former owner Sir David Murray made clear that Craig Whyte, the businessman to whom he sold Rangers, was “fully aware” of an outstanding tax liability of £2.8million before buying the club.

    And

    A spokesman for the Murray Group said: “Craig Whyte and his advisers were fully aware of the £2.8m tax liability before buying the club. The liability was included in our accounts for the six months ending on December 31, 2010.

    The accounts referred to will have been Murray International Hoidings, Rangers parent company before the takeover. It is clear from this that the unpaid tax did not materialise out of thin air after the !st of April.

  7. DeRichleau says:

    @ Auldheid at 12:34pm

    yes, I don’t suggest that the tax liability came out of the blue in April, and I understand that provision for the tax liability was made in the accounts ending 31 December 2010 – but that doesn’t seem to be anything more than budgeting for it because RFC knew it was coming. RTC blogged on 6th April 2011 that RFC and HMRC had been discussing the matter for about 2 years, but HMRC had issued an assessment “in recent weeks.”

    The regulations refer to tax payments being overdue though, not known about.

    If a demand (for want of a better word) wasn’t made until 2nd June 2011 (which is what Phil says – i.e. later even than RTC seems to suggest), then I would have thought that by definition payment can’t be overdue until sometime after that date.

    Others on this board would know better than I how long RFC would be given to pay by HMRC, but if the due date didn’t fall until after 30th June 2011, I don’t see how the bill was overdue at that date either?

  8. Auldheid says:

    DeRichleau says:

    26/10/2011 at 1:19 am

    The date of 2 June Phil quoted refers to the date HMRC instructed the Sherrif’s Officers not the date of the “demand” that had to be before 2 June (unless the SOs were delivering it by hand) and so inside the licencing process timeframe and possible in the recent weeks before 6th April when RTC blogged about it.

    In any case to stop any hares running the SFA onlyhad to say this in response to correspondents. They did not in the reply I read..

  9. DeRichleau says:

    Well in his article, Phil quoted from an email he sent to UEFA On 15th September:

    “Were UEFA made aware, by either the Scottish FA or the club in question, that one of the nominated clubs had, on or around June 2nd 2011, received a tax bill from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the ‘Tax Authority’ in Britain and therefore Scotland in a footballing context for approximately £2.8 million ?”

    And also referred to this in a post on 5th August:

    “I have also learned that Rangers had a demand from HMRC  served on them  on June 2nd by sheriff’s officers  firm  of Walker Love of Royal Exchange Square Glasgow.”

    I suppose it could be loose use of terminology by Phil, but it certainly seems he’s saying it was the bill itself which was delivered on 2nd June. I also understood the consensus was the SO visit in August was likely a summary warrant for the wee bill, which means whatever happened in June must’ve been some earlier stage in things.

    Even if RTC’s timescale is correct though, presumably the bill would not necessarily have been overdue on 30th March – RFC would have had some time to pay, although I don’t know how much – but 30th June would be a different matter, of course

  10. Insomniac says:

    DeRichleau says:
    26/10/2011 at 3:03 am

    “…..And also referred to this in a post on 5th August:
    “I have also learned that Rangers had a demand from HMRC served on them on June 2nd by sheriff’s officers firm of Walker Love of Royal Exchange Square Glasgow.”
    I suppose it could be loose use of terminology by Phil, but it certainly seems he’s saying it was the bill itself which was delivered on 2nd June……”

    Sorry, but to me this fatally undermines your own arguement that it was a routine bill. If the Sherrif was delivering anything by hand to Ibrox on the 2nd June it would be for monies overdue, would it not? Have you ever heard of the Sherrif Officer arriving before the due date to deliver a reminder before it became overdue? I think not.

  11. duggie73 says:

    On a phoenix Rangers-
    the Bain case, the Mcintyre case, the BBC documentary, the wee tax bill arrestment, the big tax bill, the club licensing rules, the free agency of players, unethical PR, lazy journalism, the murky past of Mr Whyte, any and all improper pieces of accountancy, law and business are no more than the backdrop to the main issue which will decide whether a phoenix club is workable-
    can former Rangers fans face taking the slagging they’d get by switching allegiance to a new club?
    For the record-the slagging has not started in earnest. Any prior slagging between the two Glasgow clubs was never done in the hope that the person receiving the slagging would see sense and change who they support.
    The current situation’s different. It’s comparable to having the opportunity to have an intervention with someone with a problem with addiction when they’ll never have a better chance of breaking their self-destructive behaviour.
    Long, long way to go….

  12. ger1888 says:

    surely the nominee shareholder will put his hand in his pocket ? anyone ? surely ?

  13. Cortes says:

    From Greenwald article on Tomdispatch.com; seems apposite:
    “If you watch a competition among sprinters, you can accept that whoever crosses the finish line first is the superior runner. But only if all the competitors are bound by the same rules: everyone begins at the same starting line, is penalized for invading the lane of another runner, is barred from making physical contact or using performance-enhancing substances, and so on.

    If some of the runners start ahead of others and have relationships with the judges that enable them to receive dispensation for violating the rules as they wish, then viewers understand that the outcome can no longer be considered legitimate. Once the process is seen as not only unfair but utterly corrupted, once it’s obvious that a common set of rules no longer binds all the competitors, the winner will be resented, not heralded.”

  14. BFTF says:

    A wee question.

    Is it not the case that the only two recent precedents regarding football clubs in Scotland going into liquidation are Gretna FC, Clydebank FC and Airdrieonians FC ? If I recall correctly. Airdrie UTD took the place of Clydebank FC, effectively the former taking over the latter.

    Gretna took the place of the defunct Airdrieonans. After a bidding process involving other clubs. Huntly is one I can remember.

    Is it the case then, that a new Rangers could automatically take the place in the league of todays Rangers if liquidation occured ?

    Would there have to be another bidding process and how would this pan out ??

    May I take this opperchancity to say how I have enjoyed reading this blog over the past months. The insight and humour have been lapped up hungrily. Well done to all.

  15. BFTF says:

    * Sorry. . . Thats three precedents.

    “First time caller” n aw that :)

  16. DAVE says:

    In one word they are considered ,

    “CHEATS”

    If there is no level playing field how can one determine who the best is ?

    If you cheat you loss ALL credibility within your own sport , but if you are RFC the MSM stand by and do nothing , I find it appaling that they have said and done nothing. Does it surprise me ? no , not one bit.

    I can remember celtic in crisis in the 90s , it was on back , front , and middle pages. It is quite clear for all to see that our media outlets are bigoted beyond believe

  17. Stu says:

    Dave,

    I think you’re barking up the wrong tree with that one – it’s not that the media are bigoted, it’s that they were totally in thrawl to Minty.

    For example, let’s take the recent BBC documentary – I know that we were all quietly celebrating that someone was finally shining a spotlight on Rangers, but did they? For all Phil’s ‘My work is done’, the entire focus of the programme was on the business affairs of Craig Whyte. There was very, very little on Rangers themselves. Think about the way Murray was portrayed – He was the passionate chairman fan, who overspent in his attempt to bring glory to his club. I believe it was described as ‘cavalier’ – which isn’t the word I would use to describe running up a debt of £82 million!!! Just think what the size of the debt would have been if they hadn’t been cheating the taxman for years!

    Even when the discussion turned to the sale of Rangers, it was naughty Lloyds bank that got the blame for forcing Minty to sell to Whyte, no mention of the bank legitimately wanting their money back. Even the EBT tax case, the very reason for the existence of this blog lest we forget, was barely given a mention. It was basically ‘Rangers had an EBT set up that something wasn’t right with’, before the focus of the programme quickly went back to Whyte allegedly swindling yet another person out of cash.

    So let’s not kid ourselves, the media will never be open about this, not because of any pro-Rangers/anti-Celtic bias, but just the risk of upsetting sir Minty of Moonbeam, as any sort of half credible investigation would result in fingers being pointed at him. I can only guess that he either has very powerful lawyers, or that he has a little black book with ‘security’ on the front cover, containing damning information on each and every news organisation in Scotland.

  18. DAVE says:

    Bigoted does not necessary mean sectarian,

    They ARE bigoted towards RFC and the indstitution that is , they are supposed to be OUR main stream media but havent did jack sh-te to inform anyone over the last 18months of actually what is happening, wether they are afraid of SD I dont know.

    The only conclusion one can come to is “they are biased towards RFC” if we cant accept that then we are living on the same cloud as CW.

  19. DeRichleau says:

    @ Insomniac at 3:20am

    “Sorry, but to me this fatally undermines your own arguement that it was a routine bill. If the Sherrif was delivering anything by hand to Ibrox on the 2nd June it would be for monies overdue, would it not? Have you ever heard of the Sherrif Officer arriving before the due date to deliver a reminder before it became overdue? I think not.”

    Well no, but what Phil seems to be saying is not that a reminder was delivered on 2 nd June, but rather that the bill was.

    To be fair, I’ve never heard of Sheriff officers delivering a tax bill at all. As I say it may be Phil using the wrong terminology. As it stands though his email to UEFA of 15th September appears to contradict his own argument.

    RTC seems to be saying that an assessment was not made until around March 2011, so we’ve got 2 people in the know saying that the bill wasn’t issued until some time this year, albeit in different months.

    The first question is whether a bill was overdue as at 31st March, and the supplementary question is whether it was overdue by 30th June. What I don’t know is how long RFC would’ve been given to pay – i.e. when did the bill become overdue. Even on the earlier date it seems possible the bill wasn’t overdue at least as at 31st March though.

    People seem to have become confused by the fact the liability was mentioned in the accounts to December 2010, and that therefore the liability was known about by that time. That does not necessarily make the bill overdue on either of these dates though.

    Perhaps someone on this board can clarify the date by which the wee tax bill ought to have been paid.

  20. DeRicheleau

    For the record, I have had many discussions behind the scenes with people regarding UEFA licensing and the various bills. I don’t want to discourage the investigations of others but I remain sceptical that anything can be proven assuming that there even is an issue. I do not see that particular line of enquiry as one that will pay off, but fair play to those who do.

  21. DAVE says:

    Think the point have been missed,

    RFC had a tax bill to pay , ie , the big tax bill.

    Even though they are disputing it , the tax man STILL issued a demand for payment , that was 18 months ago.

    So why where / are RFC allowed in Europe for the past 2 years ? It is my understanding that if you are issued with a tax bill and even if you question it , it is still a tax bill.

    Can anyone put me right because I have lost it a bit with all the terminology getting used.

    They where issued with a bill which they havent payed yet are still granted a licence to participate in Europe when other clubs have been banned because of unpaid tax.

    Are the SFA being fair to other clubs or was this a ploy to get them more money to stave off recievership / administration

  22. curious onlooker says:

    Stu
    If/when things go pear-shaped for RFC is when Murray will begin to get the attention he deserves. Then I believe there will be long articles on why it happened with journalists forced down the path of pointing fingers.
    The route to the Captain of Industry will be helped by CW quotes that boiled down to “it wisnae me”, he has previous for this in his short reign (European exits).

  23. DeRichleau says:

    @ Dave at 8:15am. UEFA’s rules provide that a tax bill isn’t overdue if it is being challenged before a competent tribunal, so I don’t think the big tax bill is a problem for RFC’s eligibility.

  24. DAVE says:

    derichleau,

    Thanks for clearing that up

  25. paranoidtimdroid says:

    BFTF says:
    26/10/2011 at 6:40 am

    Clydebank were not liquidated. Airdrie Utd bought Clydebank FC and changed the name.

  26. Auldheid says:

    rangerstaxcase says:

    26/10/2011 at 8:12 am

    DeRicheleau

    For the record, I have had many discussions behind the scenes with people regarding UEFA licensing and the various bills. I don’t want to discourage the investigations of others but I remain sceptical that anything can be proven assuming that there even is an issue. I do not see that particular line of enquiry as one that will pay off, but fair play to those who do.
    ==============================
    Rangers had to PROVE to the SFA there was no bill overdue. I accept that the wagons will circle but if there is no case to answer it would be easy for the SFA to ask Rangers if they could provide details to clear the air. Phil Mac seems to think there is a story but there is more to this than the story.

    Proving skullduggery is not the point, highlighting the rules so that if the big tax bill were to soldify (possibly overtaken by events but not known at time of penning letters) and it remained unpaid by 31 March 2012, the next licence would not go through on a wink and a nod.

    They now know we know ;) .

  27. BFTF says:

    Airdrie UTD also tried to gain entry when Airdrieonians went, but the place went to Gretna. . . I’m basically asking if anyone knows how these things work. Is there any set rules ?

  28. The Jeepster says:

    Quick question could Celtic sue for loss of earnings?

  29. DAVE says:

    I would think they could if the SFA have done underhand dealings , but if we are waiting for Lawell then I wouldnt hold my breath.

    I think CFC are just waiting on the periferol to see what happens and dont want to show there hand to quick.

    But in my own opinion then CFC and the team who lost out on Europe ie Dundee Utd would have a bigger claim as they were’nt in Europe at all. All because the mighty RFC , it seems, cheated yet again.

  30. edgie says:

    I normally read RTC and think aye sounds about right

    But this one I have to say I have issues
    I may be wrong wont be a first and deff wont be a last

    so I will throw this out and prob get shot down by people of higher intelligence and knowledge than me

    he’s owed what
    18m to pay off Lloyds
    5.7m he claims he has invested in the squad
    1.3m in refurb costs for ibrox
    4.2m for the small tax bill
    and say 2m costs (loan arrangement fees, bank charges and interest etc)

    so roughly 31m he will want back via the bond and floating charge as per his statement

    if rangers have no cash the only way he can get any of that back is via the assets
    Ibrox its self is only worth rental income from a new rangers after receivership
    Murray park is on greenbelt land (I think, I seem to remember there was issues in getting it build originally) so can’t be sold for housing

    So that leaves the only real assets the players
    jelly 10m
    davis, mcgregor, naismith 5m ish each??
    laffalot, and others another 5-10m

    so if rangers can get top dollar whyte will walk away with his money
    but he can’t sell them till Jan
    so IMO rangers will stay solvent or at least out of receivership /insolvency until January

  31. DAVE says:

    You have to ask yourself , “what if he has this wrong” ie whith all the claims going in against him from ex-directors ? did he bargain for that ??

    I think the guy is a charlatan or he is acting on behalf of others , either way what has been occurring has been out with his control and I dont think he/they bargained for all this.

    Watch thursday night , friday morning , I think these 2 days could become significant in the history of RFC.

  32. Mark Dickson says:

    I read Phil Mac’s latest blog about UEFA Licensing and also some of the comments…..

    What I find staggering is the blinkered assumption is that it’s mostly perceived as Celtic that were cheated and should perhaps seek damages or retribution.

    Forgive me if iam wrong but Celtic played in UEFA Competitions this season – and indeed have been granted re-entry into the tournament.

    Surely the teams that have been cheated if Rangers (or perhaps others like Hearts or Falkirk etc) have been given approval for UEFA Licenses when possibly not complying fully within the rules are those teams that were denied a UEFA place as a result. Who missed out on a European place this season or last season and who would have been awarded one if another team hadn’t been granted entry?

    The biggest failing is not whether Celtic did or didn’t gain access to the Champions League it’s the possibility that the governing bodies might be failing to administer their own rules and simply carring out a rubber stamping exercise to ‘enable’ our clubs to play in Europe.

    That is the biggest failing, then those clubs who didn’t get into europe at all who would have done and lastly clubs that did rightfully get a license mumping about which tournament they are in.

  33. DAVE says:

    Again the point is missed,

    If CFC did get entry into the champions league , and qualified the diffrence in revenue is multiplied by 4 or 5 times what the europa league offers.

    This is all hypathetical , but in theory it is plausable.

    If they cheated to gain access to the champions league then that has a knock on effect to all other teams. CFC would have lossed more that is undeniable , but half wits trying to hi-jack this site will have us believe that isnt the case.

    So are you one of the half wits ???? I rest my case.

  34. excilecelt says:

    The title of this blog is “Rangers Insolvency, Is it inevitable”. All other issues are of little consequence until this inevitability occurs. There can not be another company in the world who are trying to run a 60million business without a line of credit. When the cash runs out the business folds. Rangers credit rating with there bankers is at the same level as homeless man. they can’t get tic (no pun). CW can’t be totally ignorant of what he was getting into. He pulls these stunts for a living. His problem will be the backlash and in this he’s either got balls or Putin is his minder. What Celtic supporters, and all other clubs, should be focused on is not getting shafted on the outcome of the inevitability by those in high places who have run football in Scotland since the dark ages with a closed shop of there own kind.

  35. paranoidtimdroid says:

    BFTF says:
    26/10/2011 at 10:44 am

    Team A is liquidated. A league place is available. Teams who want the place apply for the license and the best candidate is selected.

    In Airdrieonians case, the place that came up after they were liquidated went to Gretna. Airdrie Utd, having lost out during the application process for the available position, bought Clydebank FC and changed the name to Airdrie Utd, moving the club to Airdrie at the same time.

  36. JD says:

    Would it be wise to have Friday off work

  37. jonny says:

    paranoidtimdroid says:
    26/10/2011 at 3:05 pm
    IMO the Airdrie scenario would not work for CW the bears will not take kindly to that in any way .
    They are still of the belief that they will jump into admin ,take the 10pt hit and be RAGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LTD ,playing in blue at Ibrokes .
    CW has so far managed to escape the LL obvious question of ,with you being a billionaire why are you even contemplating admin for your newly bought club for the paltry sum of 49m .

    IMO the question has never been asked because they and he all know the answer .I hope HMRC are doing all they can behind the scenes to at least attempt to get us the tax payers something back other than a principle .

    I wonder if when the top men at Ibrokes utter the words ,we are confident we will win the tax case ,they are actually saying win or lose HMRC will be farting in the wind .

    Let,s face it if CW had any intentions whatsoever of paying the tax demand ,would he not then be buying ragers from Minty for 18m+50m = 68m ,this to a man who could hardly give the business away for the last 5yrs (eventually went for a quid )

    Now I am no financial whizkid but 68m seems a tad over priced the quid sounds more like the real worth .

    I agree the HMRC story is finished the real story now is ,how far will all their friends from the LL to the SFA bend over backwards to allow the bears dream to come true

  38. jonny says:

    RTC.
    If you are around ,could you tell me who put AJ on the board at Ibrokes .
    Am I right in thinking it was LBG .

  39. Chalmers says:

    Jonny,

    Alastair Johnson was on the Rangers Board since 2004, well before LBG came on the scene and took over HBOS.

  40. jonny says:

    Chalmers says:
    26/10/2011 at 6:51 pm
    Cheers .
    Who was the man put on the board by the bank ,was it Muir?

  41. Mongoose says:

    Have any of you looked at the name —–Anagram—– Mr Old Ranger? Is it April?

  42. BFTF says:

    paranoidtimdroid says:
    26/10/2011 at 3:05 pm

    As I thought thank you for the reply.

    Therefore, a precedent has been set with the Airdrieonians/Gretna scenario. Meaning a new Rangers would have to start in Division 3.

    Surely they wouldn’t make an exception for Rangers now would the (rollseyes with more than a hint off irony)

    Ah well. Out Of The Ashes an aw that. . . . Now where have I heard that before ?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,512 other followers

%d bloggers like this: