A summation of the first few days…

In just 2-1/2 days, this site has received over 10,000 visits.  I am new to the world of blogging.  Having read the musings of others and seen that most blogs sit idle for years without a comment or any sign that anyone ever read them,  I thought that it would take a long time to build momentum and traffic for this site.  My gut feeling that there was a thirst for information on this subject has been proven wrong only by the degree to which I underestimated the level of interest. Most of all I have been overwhelmed by the quality of discussion which you, the readers, have contributed. Thank you!

Aside from the numbers and quality of debate, a few other items have taken me aback.

Firstly, the number of others working away in dark recesses of the internet to uncover the truth about Rangers’ tax predicament has been a surprise.  Some are very well-informed. Others seem to have turned to this material having exhausted the Kennedy assassinations and 9/11.  I welcome all of your messages, but if the discussion starts to veer too far off course forgive me if I delete posts to keep matters in the practical realm.  There are enough other venues for the more speculative theories.

The other thing that was surprising was the speed with which the metaphorical ‘horse’s head in the bed’ arrived.  I had always expected hacking attempts and a few threatening messages.  However, the posts on yesterday’s blog from “Me” were very interesting.  I am not usually prone to conspiracy theories, but I suspect that this blog is getting to some people who want to keep this story in its rumour and innuendo stages.  The true identity of “Me” is unknown, but I would not be shocked to learn that he is a PR enforcer for interests close to Rangers’ executives and those whom they feed.  Is this the routine behaviour that has kept this story canned for so long?  Intimidation.  Scare stories.  Quiet words about legal consequences of publication?  How many good stories are left on the cutting board in the face of veiled threats of legal action from more senior journalists with relationships to protect?

Well this is the blogosphere.  You are going to have to earn your pieces of silver to silence me.  To paraphrase Bill Struth, “I welcome the chase!”

Rangers fans should be wary of those purporting to represent their interests.  While Celtic fans might enjoy a temporary giggle over the current situation, only journalists with decades worth of friendships to protect and those who have driven the club to the precipice can benefit from keeping this story quiet.  The sooner you are told the truth by those whose wages you pay (Rangers’ executives and journalists), the sooner this nightmare ends and a new broom can sweep clean.

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 for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

36 Responses to A summation of the first few days…

  1. brian says:

    I’m really enjoying your stuff and the comments .you even managed to attract a sensible rangers fan.well done

  2. SeltikBhoy67 says:


    I notice my comment that I posted last night never made it past the moderation stage, Did I say something I shouldn’t have ? My ‘Apologies’ if I did, ‘sorry’

    Anyway I’m enjoying your blog along with all the contribution’s, a lot of knowledgeable and informative input the last few day’s on the subject. Thank you for your effort’s in making a complex subject easier to understand. I must confess thou I need to flick back and forth to my old dictionary with some of the words used, but I am getting a lot out of the blog as well as the added contribution’s.

    After reading ‘Me’s’ comment’s last night it look’s like you’ve hit a nerve and some are feeling a tad uncomfortable with some of the stuff being written and discussed within the blog, keep up the good work pal, it’s very much appreciated, thank you, and to all the contributors to the blog also, a lot of interesting and educational stuff.

    SeltikBhoy67. Hail Hail

  3. No. The post was a blog entry in its own right and was very long (and not quite on point). If you you want to resubmit and use a link to the other article, that would be fine.

  4. Torquemada says:

    Great blog — many thanks. I have a few questions, some of which may be answered by rangerstaxcase or speculated upon by other posters.

    1) Has this present case anything to do with the dawn raid on Ibrox by the City of London Police a few years ago, a story that flared for a day or two before mysteriously disappearing into the ether? With all due respect to Pedro, a very sane individual for someone who professes to follow follow, he has to be kidding if he believes a story like that on Celtic wouldn’t have lasted for months, with reporters questioning the COLP every day on how their investigation was going. The story didn’t even last as long as the inquest into Celtic’s contentious corner kick at Fir Park or Naka’s freekick at Love Street lol!

    2) If HMRC win this case, will the verdict have any consequences other than financial for Rangers? In other words, would it be proven that the club had acted fraudulently, for instance in its applications for a licence to compete in Europe? Would that, in turn, have any implications for the SFA’s due diligence, since it’s a body which, over many years, appears to have been run for the advantage of one club in particular?

    3) If HMRC wins the case, will it not place a cloud over every trophy won by Rangers over this period, since they will have been won by ”illegal” means rather than by their ”usual” means? Would every other club in Scotland have a case for insisting that all such trophies be withdrawn and reawarded in the way the trophies won by Juventus were when they were found guilty of criminal activity and relegated a few years ago? I’d love to be at QoS’s Scottish Cup-winning party! lol!

  5. Pedro says:

    “The sooner you are told the truth by those whose wages you pay (Rangers’ executives and journalists), the sooner this nightmare ends and a new broom can sweep clean. ”

    This is the one bit I don’t fully understand. I get that you are unhappy that the media’s reporting in the matter has been lax, and maybe I even agree with you.

    However, as I understand it, the case hasn’t been completed yet. And whilst the evidence you produce certainly points to Rangers losing the case, what benefits would Rangers get of admiting the issue in full in the press before the case concludes? Even if they admit their guilt, which would be suicide if the case was on going, how does it take the nightmare away?

    If we are being honest, if any football team was involoved in this, I would expect them to acknolwedge the issue, but not make any other statements until the case concludes.

  6. Pedro says:

    I am sane thankyou.

    On point 1, my understanding is the dawn raid was on transfer dealings, the same case that Harry Rednapp was involved in. Now, whether this raid resulted in documents being seized that pointed to the tax issue I don’t know, maybe the blogger will know. Certainly I have heard that rumour.

    On the point of the media running with it for weeks if it was Celtic, I think the past of Celtic being down trodden by the media and the SFA (if it was even ever there!) is gone, but I guess that is probably a point we will have to agree to disagree.

  7. Let me answer points 2) and 3) together. I am not well versed in association regulations, but I cannot see a tax matter being taken too seriously by the SFA or UEFA. As I understand it, Scottish clubs have to be up to date with tax bills on 31 Mar each year to receive a UEFA license. The current case would not be held against Rangers FC until all appeals had been exhausted. On the issue of trophies being withdrawn, that would be very unlikely. It would open a can of worms for the SFA. If this year has been a chaotic one for the SFA, the period following the removal of honours due to a civil tax matter would be all out war. If anyone at Rangers FC ends up being convicted of any criminal charges, perhaps there would be more of a claim, but that is a long way off, and unlikely to ever happen. As interested as I am in this subject, what Rangers have been accused of to date does not get on the same plane as Bernard Tapi or Italian corruption. It can be argued to be financial doping, but that has reversed itself. It is for other clubs to take advantage of the reversal and to date they have failed to do so.

  8. JohnBhoy says:

    Stand by for incoming . . .
    The “me”-diahouse offices should be opening any time now.
    The guy is not very subtle, is he?
    Basically, “We’ll find out who you are, sue you for leaking confidential information and tell your boss to sack you.”
    Ooooh, he’s a scary man.
    Would be a shame if we found out who HE is and who he works for, wouldn’t it?
    These things are easy to do, apparently. (;-0)

  9. No one needs to admit anything. My suggestion is that if Rangers FC had communicated honestly with their shareholders and supporters, that matters would have been brought to a head already. The honest communication I advocate is to do nothing more than comply with UK accounting disclosure requirements for listed firms. (Rangers are not considered to be a listed company). Will Rangers’ Interim Report (which has a release deadline of tomorrow) comply with IAS 36? This would require that the amounts on the tax assessments are declared as contingent liabilities. Any changes in asset values need to be declared too.
    Where I am going with this is that the best course of action for Rangers FC, the institution, is to find a legitimate reason to file for administration as soon as possible. It would bring all of these issues to a head and would bring out those who are genuinely interested in buying the club. The current millstones could be cut free from the club’s neck. I will write in future articles about how adminsitration would work, what the benefits would be (and the risks), but the only people benefitng from dragging this process out are those who fear that their personal reputations will be in tatters when everything comes out. It is a kind of Berlin 1945 mentality that means they will fight to the end in the hope that the long odds of a win come good.
    People need to see the extent to which individuals are acting out of self-preservation rather than to save Rangers FC.

  10. BlackCity says:

    Totally agreed regarding ‘Me’s comments. I fear the lady protests too much. Definitely hit a nerve. The problem is that an educated observer doesn’t need to know the ins and outs of the case to see the problems that could arise for Rangers. They are ‘learned deductions’ insofar as anyone with an understanding of the technical area of finance/law can see that EBTs are simply not suitable for the contractual remuneration of a football player. There is no fig leaf or reasonable defence to hide behind.

    I notice that ‘me’ has concentrated on menacing language and thinly-veiled threats rather than question the assertions made in the posts. Whether he’s a reasonably educated outsider or an outlier sent by the PR machine is immaterial. The fact is, like everyone else, he knows that there is more than a kernal of truth in all of this.

  11. Educated guesser bullshitting about having access to the inside track or someone spilling the beans? Nothing in this blog proves that I am definitely one or the other, but if I have just made some good guesses, they seem to have someone rattled.

  12. Torquemada says:

    Thanks for the replies, which I don’t necessarily agree with. lol!

    Another question: is it true that if HMRC wins the case, Rangers have to pay up before they can appeal? Far be it from me to give any succour to the forces of darkness, but that would offend natural justice, it appears to me.

  13. vavatch says:

    I just read all of Me’s comments – I have to say that he doesn’t appear to be on the payroll of RFC to me. The impression I had was that “Me” is a hardened sceptic – albeit one with experience in the area – and one with some not unreasonable questions. “me” didn’t seem to be pushing any particular agenda, and (to put it uncharitably) the notion that he is could be said to be a tad paranoid – not that I want to play into the “celtic supporters are all paranoid loonies” notion, but, there you have it.

    “Me” never told you not to publish, but did have some reasonable cautions for you – a caution is not a threat!

  14. I have heard conflicting versions of whether HMRC could force Rangers to pay immediately after the First Tier Tribunal (assuming that it goes against Rangers). A response to an enquiry to HMRC’s public affairs department said that they would not enforce payment during an appeals process if that payment would result in insolvency. However, I have heard other rumblings of a recent change in law that would counter the tactic of stalling payment by just appealing. To be frank, I have not been able to find a definitive answer on this.

    Perhaps some of our other readers could answer the question?

  15. JohnBhoy says:

    Oh, look, vavatch has been put on the case now. Or am I just paranoid?
    My point RE: Liquidation was that it may be Lloyds’ best chance of getting preferred creditor status.
    Say they slash the valuation of Ibrox and lump the Murray Sports “contingent liability” into the RFC account.
    That would allow them to pull the plug on RFC and take control of their assets before the Tribunal was completed and the tax bill could be assigned.
    After all, if you know a runaway train is going to hit your house, you just grab what you can and run.
    Mr Taxcase, could Lloyds do this without any retrospective comeback from HMRC?

  16. Auldheid says:

    I totally agree with you on Rangers adopting an honest approach because I think administration, which will be aimed at keeping them going rather than putting them out of business is the way they will have to go for the benefit of Scottish football as well as themselves.

    Dundee for example seem to be surviving off and on the field after 2 or 3 administration experiences and they have nothing like the size of the Rangers support who will stick with their club, to draw on. I look forward to seeing how administration might work in their case.

    Their approach to their financial difficulties is symptomatic of what got them into bother in the first place, trying to gain advantage by all means possible.

    I do not know if it just the money, a misplaced senseof pride or difficulty admitting that “ra peepul” are not as clever as they thought, but administration might do more than clear the debt, it might give rise to a whole new set of policies that clean up their act. The more they hang on, the more culpable they appear.

    On a related point the SFA licencing process, in addition to requiring EXISTING tax liabilities to be declared does require assurances from Rangers that they will be able to continue as a going concern in the following season the licence covers ie 2011/2012. These assurances should not be taken at face value but probably will be by both the SPL and SFA desperate not to lose Rangers from the SPL.
    Keep an eye on this aspect as well as attempts to deflect from it from the same folk with the twitchy keyboard.

  17. Andrew Watt says:


    Keep on Keeping On.

    Don’t fold to their scare tactics.

    This is a magnificent blog.

    You clearly have inside info.

    They are clearly frightened by your willingness to expose them.

  18. Josh Lyman says:

    Enjoying this very insightful blog. Many thanks and keep up the good work.

  19. Annie M says:

    Craig Whyte spin doctors telling folk the HMRC issue has been sorted and taken care of.

    This is interpreted to mean that the Murray Group has agreed to meet any liability.

    Rangerstaxcase, how likely is this I wonder??

  20. The story as we have been told , that Craig Whyte is buying Rangers for an amount that would clear the debt and leave MIH several millions for its shares? No. That I do not believe. Whyte would have to be the worst businessman in history to pay such a sum and take on the tax case risk. (Leaving aside the many questions over Whyte’s funding. Has he paid for his roofing materials yet?)

    As for anyone else accepting liability for the tax bill? Nonsense. That I do not believe.

    Could Murray have pusuaded the bank that Rangers’ shares are worthless and that MIH should just give them away for next to nothing? More likely, but I would find it hard to believe that Lloyds would let any MIH assets go just now. Why not keep them until a tax case decision? It’s a one-way option. Rather than give away RFC shares now, with a tax decision, they are either confirmed as being worthless or suddenly are quite valuable (if Rangers win).

    So, having followed these matters quite closely, this has the odour of more spin. Has the bank made a statement? Or is this more leaking to favoured journalists? (So much for confidentialty and Takeover Panel rules!)

    I like the idea that Lloyds might have actually said “the ball is in your court. Don’t blame us if this falls through.” Bluffs being called?

    We should know for certain in just over a day.

  21. Andi says:

    breaking news on SSN Llyods TSB have given Mr Whyte the go ahead to buy the club
    He’s either very foolish or absolutely loaded

  22. If he is absolutely loaded, he has managed to acquire great wealth without leaving a trace of evidence. A remarkable feat.

  23. Chico says:

    sky sports understands…….ahh ok. i see.

  24. Takeover says:

    You are going to look like a total idiot if this takeover goes through…..:-)

  25. Andi says:

    so foolish he is then lol

  26. I will admit that my judgment would have been proven wrong if this does turn out to be true, but you seem to have missed the point of this blog. It is about Rangers’ tax case.

    That will not be going away. If someone is willing to underwrite Rangers’ liability for the tax bills and place £60m in escrow now to ensure that any and all payment demands from HMRC are met promptly, then yes, this blog becomes a waste of time and I will hurl myself off the Erskine Bridge in shame.

    I am looking forward to a long comfortable life.

  27. Boab says:


    Enforcement of judgements in litigation

    Changes – payment of tax even though your case may be under further appeal with the Tribunals Service or the Courts

    The Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Report 2009 that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is to apply a more consistent approach to the collection of debts in litigation. For more information follow the link below to the Pre-Budget Report.

    At the present time HMRC currently has an inconsistent approach to the collection of tax in cases where a tribunal or court has found against the customer but there is a further appeal.

    HMRC must repay overpaid tax where there is a judgment in favour of a taxpayer, even though that judgment is subject to appeal. However where HMRC have a judgment in their favour they do not consistently collect the tax before the appeal is heard.

    Therefore HMRC has decided to move to a more consistent approach, under which payment of tax will normally be required in all such cases. This change will take effect in relation to all decisions made by the Tribunals or Courts on or after 1 April 2010.

    A party to litigation is legally bound to accept the judgment of a tribunal or court, even though they may be appealing against it.

    HMRC will not enforce payment in cases where an agreement not to do so had been made with the appellant before 9 December 2009 (the date of the Pre-Budget Report)

    HMRC will not enforce payment in cases where to do so would be likely to drive the taxpayer into liquidation or bankruptcy.

  28. Takeover says:

    It may be about the tax case but you have also expressed opinion on the takeover. No one is buying rangers with the tax liability so if a takeover is happening then someone is underwriting any potential taxes and fines .

    Enjoy the bridge…..

  29. interested says:

    Would it be benneficial for mr Whyte to Asset strip the club to make some money, club folds and ends up being resurected ala Airdrie.

    Not saying that that would be Craig Whyte’s intention just wondering if it would be an option, Murray Park and Ibrox must be worth a bit of money

  30. interested says:

    We see enough speculation on the old firm to know to wait till it’s a done deal. the Whyte deal has been ‘done’ more times than i care to remember

  31. Boab says:

    Am I not right in saying that the Government actually own about half of Lloyds now.

    So even it were not for the fact that they would be openly doing something which is likely to seriously annoy HMRC, they would also be doing it to the Government who owns a large part of the bank doing it.

    Seems a bit mad to me.

  32. George Dallas Peat says:

    (post redacted)

    Could this be why there is no paper trail ?

    If there is no paper trail then surely he cannot pass the SFA´s fit and proper persons test ?

  33. Auldheid says:


    Ready 😉

  34. Thanks for the alert. I am still trying to master this blogging software and have not got my arms around all of the features yet.

    To everyone else- we have been having a very positive dialog and we should keep it that way. This applies especially to accusations about people who have not volunteered for the media spotlight. To some extent, Whyte is fair game, but we cannot indulge in a wild fishing trip.

    Let’s not lower the tone here. There are plenty of messageboards that idulge in this type of stuff.

    As a reminder, there is no fit and proper person test.

  35. JohnBhoy says:

    Not me,
    You can’t sue for libel in Scotland; it’s defamation.
    And you must have a reputation worth defaming, and be able to show that any comments had a negative financial impact.
    Comments on an internet blog? Away and bile yer heid!

  36. Great Boab.

    That bit of digging is much appreciated. So what I had heard from different people was all actually true, but there are circumstances which determine which apply.

    So to summarize for this blog, if Rangers FC lose at the First Tier Tribunal, the bill crystallizes even if the Upper Tier Tribunal agree to hear an appeal. (Which they will). However, Rangers would be easily able to establish that a bill for £36m would push them into adminstration, so they could defer payment until after the appeals process is exhausted.

    Very interesting.

%d bloggers like this: