Rangers Knew About Other Tax Bill


On 1 April, Rangers’ Chairman, Alastair Johnston, presented his club’s Interim Results for the six month period ending 31 December 2011.  A bit of a fuss followed his revelation that Rangers had taken a charge of £2.8m for a tax bill relating to a Discounted Options Scheme used to compensate players between 1999-2003.  This is a second, and entirely separate,  tax case from the much larger one related to Rangers’ use of Employee Benefits Trusts (EBTs).  This smaller bill has been seized by the creative PR staff spinning the on-going “takeover” saga involving Craig Whyte as a snag holding up a deal to sell the club.  However, it was Johnston’s claims that this bill “came out of left field” that struck me as strange.  So I did some digging.

If Johnston is claiming that no one at Rangers FC knew about this bill, he is either ignorant of the facts or is deliberately misleading his shareholders.  It is possible that Johnston and other board members did not know about this bill, but my research reveals that staff at Rangers FC have been aware of this issue for at least two years.  Contrary to speculation, this issue was not discovered during Craig Whyte’s (or anyone else’s) due diligence.  Back-office staff at Rangers have been corresponding with HMRC on the matter for all of this time, and cannot claim that this was any kind of surprise.  After many months of discussion and correspondence, HMRC finally sent an assessment in recent weeks.

If Alastair Johnston’s claims of executive surprise are true, it is indicative of an organizational and leadership vacuum at the club.  Certainly, Martin Bain, as Chief Executive charged with day-to-day management of the business, should have been fully aware of this issue.  If a “shoot-the-messenger” culture exists that lead accounting staff at Rangers to hide potentially bad news from the Chief Executive, the club is in worse shape than anyone thought.  A picture seems to be emerging of a dysfunctional organization that rarely misses an opportunity to do the wrong thing.

This would all appear to be a hangover from the reign of Sir David Murray.  It is a familiar issue for companies where an overbearing ego casts a long shadow.  Organizational design, delegation of authority, and a common understanding of business ethics are sacrificed to feed Mammon.  In such companies, strong middle managers do not develop or they are passed-over for more the more compliant.  When the cult of personality fades or is extracted, there is no corporate culture to fall back upon.  Either Rangers has become such a troubled company, or Alastair Johnston is mistaken when he claims that no one knew that this issue was brewing.  If Martin Bain knew but did not inform the board of developing risks, it would reveal the extent to which Rangers have become distracted by internal feuding and ownership issues.

The obvious next question: Are there any more tax issues?
I have been told of a few issues bubbling under. It should not surprise us that more issues exist. Once you ‘cross the Rubicon’ and embark upon what is, at best, a high risk taxation strategy, your door will be open to every snake-oil selling law firm with a plan.  Other schemes in which it has been claimed that Rangers have participated over the last decade include one to award share warrants in cash-rich offshore companies to staff and to make use of  film partnerships.  (Coincidentally, this last scheme was apparently used to compensate a former Rangers manager who bears a startling resemblance to the actor David Caruso).

Whether investigations into these other issues ever result in additional tax assessments remains to be seen.  Nevertheless, it is clear that when a revitalised Celtic started to apply pressure on Rangers in the late 1990s, Sir David Murray directed the club to chart a course which now imperils its very existence.

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.

139 Responses to Rangers Knew About Other Tax Bill

  1. I cannot comment on how HMRC will play the final end game to extract money from Rangers, but from what I know, they are simply focused on getting a result.

    We can discount the idea that “fellow travellers” will intervene on Rangers’ behalf. That train left the station a few years ago.

  2. Go to Page 10 of the report.
    Bottom line, 3rd column along: (i.e. for the group)
    “Loss of the Financial Period: £73.722m”

    I should probably update the other page. A minor glitch, but the story remains unaltered: yesterday’s PR about “deal done” was spin to distract from a second year of disasterous results.

  3. eventlogger says:

    Boab tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal. Hence the tax bill + interest + penalty fine. The reasons why no individual is being prosecuted was was explained elsewhere by RTC:

    >>>Another point to address from a different interview, Alastair Johnston repeated his strange assertion that “no one is accusing Rangers of having done anything illegal”. Yes they are. Rangers are accused of having broken UK law. It will take quite a creative definition of “illegal” to say that consciously breaking the law is not “illegal” conduct. What no one has done is to file criminal charges. That was at HMRC’s discretion. HMRC is a revenue collection organisation and usually only brings criminal prosecutions in cases involving lawyers and financial professionals where it is easier to prove that they would have known that they were committing a crime. The standards of proof in a civil tax tribunal are also a lot lower than in a criminal court. So, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be criminally prosecuted in Rangers’ case (unless they commit perjury), but that does not mean that Rangers have not acted illegally. They have. >>>>

  4. instant karma,
    This year is the least of it. To unwind 10 years of cheating that peaked about 4-5 years ago would be very difficult. The SFA will certainly not want to do any excavation work on these lines, but every fan will know that Rangers have had a tainted decade.

  5. Don’t read too much into the audit aspects.

    Firstly, the MIH accounts are to 30 June 2010. They will likely have been completed shortly thereafter and its is simply MIH which has delayed their release. The auditor’s signature is from 17 Dec 2010. So much of what has been released since then, GT can claim to not have known.

    The auditors have the defence of saying “based on the information available to us”. If RFC have found a couple of paid “experts” who have written reports saying that they do not expect any bill to be paid, then Grant Thornton can lean on these as a defence. (They may have their own tax experts, but they are not obliged to use them in the audit). Any “expert” will do.
    Grant Thornton also audit both MIH and RFC. That RFC cannot afford a provision for the large case, means that it is a matter of immediate life or death that Rangers do not recognise the risk. It will be a brave auditor who will cry foul in such a situation. However, the next set of Rangers accounts (or even the ones submitted to the SFA last week) if GT has not insisted on quantification or the risk and a going-concern warning, they are taking their careers and the company credibility in their hands.

  6. BARRYM says:

    Football clubs lose money, but one football club in Glasgow has an option on a lot of land. 
    What do you do?  You get someone to reduce the debt down to zero and the running costs of
    the football club below income levels by selling players and reducing the wage bill.  You then
    buy said football club and gain access to the option on the land.  Things are never that simple? 
    You’d need someone absolutely desperate to get rid of the football club wouldn’t you? 

    Just found this on celticunderground.net

    What do you think ??

  7. Let’s cut through the semantics of terms that few really understand.
    Rangers are accused of having knowingly broken UK tax laws in their use of the EBTs. They have already received a penalty assessment of 75% of the core bill. Such an amount is an indication of where on the scale of deception HMRC place Rangers FC.
    No criminal proceedings have started, nor are they likely to ever start (unless someone commits perjury). However, that was at HMRC’s discretion. Criminal charges could have been filed against Rangers and some of its representatives who administered the EBT.

  8. MIH are indeed a target of the investigation. It is harder to pin them down because the main beneficiary of MIH’s use of the same EBT used by Rangers was Murray himself. He would not have needed to have any written contract for most of his own withdrawals, so it becomes harder to prove that the loans were not loans. Murray’s withdrawals from the EBT may eventually be ruled as being legal.
    That is why Rangers are the main target for this.
    My understanding is that no other football club in the UK participated in the scheme to the extent or duration of Rangers. That is why they have been the primary target for setting the case law. It is simply easier to prove what they have done because there is a lot more evidence.

  9. Brattbakkk says:

    Have GT shredders at the ready? Remember Arthur Andersen & ENRON

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen

  10. Ciaran's Dad says:

    Maybe i’m reading to much into what is being said, but could it be a possibility that Whyte is buying the assets of Rankers as one company and the football club by another company with them leasing Ipox from the first company.
    Therefore when the taxman cometh it is a much easier sitation to go into and back out of administration in one season, meaning a 10 point deduction and the resultant place in the league for that year.
    Possibly they could do it this year if results start to go against them.
    Just something in the way it was released the other day that a deal had been done for Ipox, Murray park and the assets??

  11. Auldheid says:

    When Celtic lost the league in 2009 after outplaying Rangers in the LC final with McGeady behind McDonald, I could never understand why GS changed that formation in the run in. Then when we lost, and annoyed at the media making up the story that GS was disliked because he was not seen as Celtic minded (naw it was his brand of football was unexciting) I made up my own wee story. that went like this.

    A big ship goes down and 12 survivors are left in a lifeboat with 12 oars. Safety is withing rowing distance but only if there are enough providing the energy to row, One rower is fully fit and healthy,one other is half fit and the other 10 are barely alive. There is enough supplies to reach safety if everyone is kept at or above their existing health level, however the fit guy has to give up a good bit of his share of supplies to keep the others in that contributing state. And so he does.

    Now at the time I knew why I wrote it, to make up a daft idea as the media had done with GS, but even then I felt a bit mental posting it. Now, with every revelation, I have to not think about it for the sake of my own well being. So you are not alone 🙂

    Is your scenario posible? Why not? But even the CL money would fall into the HMRC black hole, althougth it will mean it will take less time to escape its financial gravity, so planning on admin makes sense, but putting it off as a formality has a host of attractions. SB sales, UEFA licencing, not having points deducted this season and so risking the CL money.

    For me its all about delay and obsfuscation using the media smoke machine. All those journalist jobs depending on Scottish footbal!

    Who better to blow smoke?.

  12. Auldheid says:

    It is the current licencing round that needs to be tranparent in spite of the confidentiality clauses written into the rules.

    The last shreds of the integrity of our game depends on questions being asked of the SFA and answered by them. It is the integrity of Scottish Football that is on the line here, not Rangers dignity.

  13. CHARON says:

    I asked this earlier in the thread, rtc, I think maybe it slipped under your radar, so I’ll ask it again.

    You are stating that rangers actually had a tax bill of £1.87m with £0.9m of interest, yet there is no mention anywhere of a fine for what must have been waaaaay overdue disclosure to the authorities and payment of said bill. Is this normal?

  14. Boab says:

    If the contention is that Rangers (as a body corporate) can be charged with tax evasion can someone tell me what the charge would be. As far as I am aware any tax evasion charge in the UK is “Knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion …”. Only people can be knowingly concerned and as such only people can be charged with evasion. I mean “fraud” and “evasion” in the legal senses of the word, as opposed to the normal English meaning of evasion, which people normally take to be synonymous with avoidance.

    Putting it another way, in order for something to be fraudulent, there must be an intention to deceive and an intention to benefit from that deception, there doesn’t have to be a benefit, just the intention of getting one. Hence Fraudulent Evasion … lying in order to benefir from not paying the right amount.

    I’m sorry, but the semantics are important. I don’t beleives that Rangers’ will be the subject of fraudulent evasion charges because I think it’s a non-sequitur. That does not mean that those working for the business won’t be, but I have not seen anything to suggest they will. However, that may well come after the Tribunal, which is looking into the alleged avoidance scheme. It may very well be that once that is finalised HMRC may then wish to look in more detail at those who operated it and consider criminal charges against them.

  15. Chalmers says:

    I don’t know of any other way to reach you RTC, but I submitted a comment at 10.02 this morning (before Torquemada’s) but it still hasn’t passed moderation. If there’s something wrong with it, please let me know.

    Thanks.

  16. Fines are a measure of how deceptive and uncooperative a company has been on an issue. If you took advice (i.e. bought a package) from a law firm, followed that advice, and then ended up with a bill from HMRC, so long as you are open in your dealings with them, you will not get a penalty. The interest itself is deemed penalty enough. So Rangers’ behaviour may have been very different on this case than with the EBT. I can say with certainty that it was different staff who were dealing with HMRC on the EBT and on the Discounted Options Scheme.

  17. vavatch says:

    I was just curious about a couple of things Mr Taxcase:

    How common were EBTs back in the period rangers are being investigated for? Is there any chance that other Scottish football clubs have skeletons in their closet, or were rangers uniquely feckless? Will the fallout from this case spread like a plague bacillus across the top flight of the game? I certainly know a few folk in my place of work who have made use of EBTs but I understand they were careful to not leave a paper trail..

    Secondly, where are the executives in charge of the HMRC case located? Are they located in Scotland (East Kilbride or wherever), or are they located down south in London? The people that made the decision to “pull the trigger” and go after rangers. I don’t suppose there is any chance they are located in Manchester – that would be too funny.

  18. Apologies to those whose comments were stuck in moderation for a while.

  19. EBTs were not common at all for football clubs when Rangers started. They were not unusual for a small group of finance types and business owners, and as mentioned in previous posts, the courts have upheld the use of EBTs in certain narrow uses.

    I will discuss the implications for other clubs in a couple of weeks time, but it will not spread too far.

    I am not going to discuss the location or give clues to the identity of those who have carried out the investigation other than to say that it was done by people with no sectarian or footballing agenda. They could not have given a monkey’s (or should that be a gorilla’s?) f*ck about Rangers or Celtic.

  20. Murray Park is 100% owned by Rangers FC.
    I am planning on an analysis of how much Murray has put into Rangers and how much he has withdrawn. Should be up within a week.

  21. jusodae says:

    Now that you say that I noticed the other day that there were two companies set up at the tail end of last year Glasgow Rangers (Holdings) and Glasgow Rangers (Business).

    They could be totally unrelated to all of this though.

  22. Any evidence to support this? Not seen anything about it. Are they UK companies?

  23. BigFrank says:

    Again RTC, your blog is phenominal. Please keep up the good work.

    A little off topic here, but one that has been alluded to in the past: clearly Craig White’s motivations do not make any financial sense (as discussed numerous times). I am not so sure his motivations even make emotional sense. I then add in that Scotland has a relatively flat social structure compared to many others countries in Western culture; i.e. there are not a lot of really wealthy people and if you are rich, people tend to notice and talk about it (usually with some hidden envy). So, why has no one ever heard of Craig Whyte???? He could hide in New York but not in Glasgow. Which leads me to think that there HAS to be a connection (direct or indirect) between him and SDM. If I was a journalist, I would try and connect those dots…on you go now, boys.

  24. Davie says:

    I’ve been reading this blog for a week a now. It seems very informative and well written.

    I have really only question though…….

    Is it all possible RFC may actually escape ie win their tribunal with HMRC?.

    If so….would HMRC have the right to appeal?

  25. Don’t hold your breath.

    I agree- Whyte’s motivations are a bit if a mystery. If he genuinely wants to buy Rangers now, he must think that someone like Murray will be stupid enough to give a copper-bottomed guarantee on the tax liability. It would require naivity in the extreme to expect a consumate negotiator like Murray to get pressured into that.

    The discussion of liability for the tax bill would not take more than an hour to establish that there was no common ground and no chance of angreement. Hence, I think that by now, Murray and Whyte have a common interest in spinning out this story. Whyte gets publicity that can be conveyed into getting meetings and putting deals together that would not have been possible when he was anonymous?

  26. CelticFCblog says:

    Glasgow Rangers (Holdings) Ltd was registered on March 18, 2010, and Glasgow Rangers (Business) Cosortium Ltd was registered on March 19, 2010. Neither company has filed a Return. Both list as their registered offices the HQ of Company Warehouse in Chelmsford, Essex, where firms can be set up online for a few quid.
    Hmmm . . . Surely there must be somewhere we can find the listed Director?
    Their nature of business is SIC (03)

  27. jusodae says:

    No evidence at all. Just the listings at Companies House. I was checking to see if there was a company listed as Glasgow Rangers – I was thinking of setting one up. My thinking being that in the event of them going bust they’d possibly want to buy the name off me. Be worth a punt I thought but somebody beat me to it.

    Don’t know who though.

  28. BigFrank says:

    But he is the only game in town and he knows that. So the rational thing would be to sit on the sidelines and let Rangers go into administration. Buy the club for a nominal sum ($10MM or $15MM should get rid of LLoyds). HMRC is unsecured, so they should go away…eventually. Then he would have the Pride of Scotland free and clear and he could then invest in the club/stadium/playing staff etc. That would be rational and the right thing to do for the supporters.

    Unless he was a puppet for SDM.

  29. CelticFCblog says:

    Sorry (you can add this to the earlier comment),
    Under “Nature of Buisness SIC (03)” it says “None supplied”.

  30. bert says:

    Thanks Auldheid;

    Ergo should any investigation (rolls eyes) around this specific tax bill uncover that they were indeed fully aware when applying for 2010/11 licencies but knowingly failed to disclose, have any retrospective impact on either of the establishement organisations?

  31. Monsieur says:

    Is it a possibility that persons not directly employed by Rangers benefited directly from an EBT, as arranged by Rangers?

  32. I STILL See No subs Except... says:

    Ther is some poetic justice in this wrt the media’s abdication of objective journalistic standards in all of this (very astute summing up of thier motivation for this Tony)…

    It all started in another crisis – and another board in disarray. The media were quick to jump on Celtic and that outcry precipitated Celts For Change, Fergus McCann, and ultimately, a revitalised Celtic.

    Oh, the first irony, but far from the last.

    Rangers, faced with this, were understandably under pressure to respond, and so precipitated some unsustainable spending, in conjunction with implementing questionable tax practices.

    Rangers, were in trouble for some time after that, with one dissenting voice form the Ibrox board-room in full cry. However the same press that heralded doom for Celtic so clearly, and galvanised a recovery, stayed loyally silent on this one, and so it festered and festered, and festered.

    The banking crisis precipitated a sea-change in fortunes for MIM, and Sir David Murray – he of succulent lamb and unabashed red meat eating. The Bank effectively took control of MIM, and of Rangers, yet still nothing was heard. No voices raised, no meaningful holding to account or fans informed enough to mount sustainable concern.

    Until now, that is.

    When Rangers very existence is threatened by the boil of a tax case that must be lanced by HMRC, and whilst no-one knows if this patient will survive the £54M treatment, he almost certainly won’t be the player he once was.

    Only now, when things are desperate almost to the point of catastrophe, do we see creaking among the ranks – the first cracks of a schism between those media puppets of SDM, and those loyal followers of the club – because only now, in such desperate times is it becoming clear that the mutual objectives are of those two parties, SDM and RFC, are no longer aligned. Whilst, critically, they haven’t been for some time, it is only now that they, the media, begin to acknowledge it.

    There is poetic justice in this, as the very media who galvanised us to ultimate recovery and success, have negligently let this one slide to despair.

    As Celtic fans, I suppose we should thank them?

    Except that, as we all know, it was never their intent, and they were just too stupid, near-sighted, and downright indolent to see what their shoddy standards would bring about.

    My message/plea to Rangers fans is htis:

    I hope RFC survives, and is impacted only minimally, though I do fear otherwise (and truly fear, as this will be bad for Scottish football, and for Celtic too in the long-run).

    But whatever happens, be sure to REMEMBER those who have served you ill at every turn, while thinking they were dancing out of tune to their true master’s refrain, or of sheer dumb loyalty, they have betrayed themselves, their profession, and they have betrayed YOU.

    That’s the real irony – their voluntary subjugation harms the very constiuency they are supposed to be pandering to.

    In summary – We ALL deserve better.

  33. Casual Observer says:

    It’s a decent point, and I don’t doubt it’s being/been considered. Ultimately, Rangers will stand or fall on the reliability of their ;revaluation reserve’ that adds £57M to the historical cost of their land and buildings.

    Problem with your suggestion though is simply that these assets dwarf everything else on Rangers’ balance sheet. If you removed these assets without a consideration of more than £80M, Rangers would be technically insolvent.

    There would be a further downstream problem here also were creditors and shareholders to challenge the transaction. It would be rather difficult to justify on commercial terms afterall,

  34. RanchoFranco says:

    The Rankers dysfunction is analagous a failing school whom through decades of unprincipled ethos at the highest level of (mis)management a culture of indiscipline been allowed to grow and where a triumphalist mindset of impunity is manifest the afforded and increasing rowdiness of it’s ‘pupils’ (peeples?)
    The school board through it’s history of ill governship (Peat et al) have institutionally inculcated the hall monitors (Dallas & co.) to such an extent that all reported instances of thuggery and racism are irrationally
    downplayed at all costs lest them pesky ‘inspectors’ (UEFA/HMRC) of a higher order, alerted but circumspect their paltry sanctions these many years decide finally to set as an example this folly-folly
    of eons unreported and largely ignored (Laptop Loyal) anti-social section of babymen in blue crimes.

  35. Yes and yes.

    Although the case against Rangers is overwhelming, in any “court” process anything can happen. Knowing that the case will be appealed and go to the Upper Tier Tribunal regardless may colour opinions, but it is hard to say which way.
    Regardless of outcome, the losing party will be able to appeal. Appeals are not automatic and get harder to obtain with each level. However, a case of this nature will definitely be granted a hearing at the Upper Tier Tribunal.

    In an appeal, you do not get to present new evidence or argue the facts again, Simply that more senior judges review the evidence presented already and decide if the correct decision has been made on the basis of law.

  36. instant karma says:

    refs? press? surely no

  37. Davie says:

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    It’;s pretty much “appeal process” standard with regards any matter. Really more of a review of the judgment than anything else.

    Cheers…I like everyone await the “The Decision”!

  38. Paranoid Timdroid says:

    This thought struck me the other day, off the back of another post i made on here. Buying Ibrox/Murray Park and renting it back to the club would seem a very sound long term investment, all depending on the actual state of the stadium. An independent company would also feel no emotional attachment to the name and would likely sell to a sponsor. This to me seems the only logical explanation for any kind of buy out.

  39. Boab says:

    “HMRC is unsecured, so they should go away…eventually.”

    Or, if they are the major creditor, which they may well be, move to liquidate the business and sell the whole lot off to get their money, or as much of it as possible.

    If the HMRC debt is tens of millions of pounds then they do not have to just accept pennies in the pound from a business which on paper has tens of millions of pounds worth of assets. Why should they. That money belongs to everyone in the UK. It’s not HMRC’s money, or The Government’s money, it’s our money. So why should they go away … eventually.

  40. Casual Observer says:

    There are 3 things in my mind that lend credibility to Whyte:

    Firstly, he has said absolutley nothing to the press via any channel. If he was in it for PR, he isn’t taking his opportunity.

    Secondly, he’s still there. Clearly the vendor does not think their time is being entirely wasted. Lloyds think he has the dough they’re looking for. If he dodn’t. they’d have known months ago.

    Finally, his media lawyers. You don’t pay those fees to maintain a stunt.

    On the toss side, no one has yet run the reports on him, or if they have, no one has published them. We know his business folded 10 years ago, but not what he had taken out of the business up to that point, or what he has generated since. A decfent Experian profile will reveal some intersting material that has not been put in the public sdomain yet. Why not? See point 2 above as a fundamental contradiction in this regard.

  41. droid says:

    re the potential Upper Tier Tribunal. Is there a possibility that persons of degrees of knowledge may aid a fellow indicating distress at said hearing?

    Why is the tune ‘the great escape’ such a favourite with the kwik savers?

  42. RanchoFranco says:

    tonybananas,
    Glad to see you on this RTC’s magnificent site, as nod’s to the great go, I think
    that he has been enpowered to heights unforeseen by the heavy lift groundwork
    the likes yourself.
    ….upon the shoulders of Giants and all that…
    Your work is peerless and exquisitly insightful the faux phony half lux-lite next new shelved
    celebrehun splash of beach collective high-chair insouciance..

  43. Ian Ferguson says:

    I first came to this site through reading Phil Mac.

    Just after you named the wee rascal who sold Minty another Moonbeam Phil wrote a blog saying he had met him, went back for a second session, and the guy seemed ok.

    I didn’t know if Phil meant as a curteous person or as someone who thinks they have acted in a proper fashion.

    I asked if Phil thought it was product abuse cos I had a thought as I read his Blog.

    If the supplier of the product knows Minty used it in a fashion not specifically advised by him, he is off the hook.

    If Minty dabbled in every scheme going, as it seems he did, a wee bit of misuse in each product might give us all a creak in the neck watching that pesky ” left field.”

    I’M LOVING THIS!

  44. Tony,
    No matter how you look at this story, it doesn’t make sense. However, are you not making a few assumptions?
    1. Whyte’s name is all over the media = publicity. By never actually speaking on the record his feet cannot be held to the fire for false statements. He gets the benefit with minimal personal risk. (At least this might be what he thinks).
    2. If he and Murray are colluding in spinning out this story, there would be no need for either to kill the story. There is no detail of this story which could not have been discussed and either agreed or made clear that there is deadlock by now.
    3. His lawyers? I see a lot of evidence of a very active PR campaign. (Is he paying for it?) I have not seen a shred of evidence of legal, investment banking or consultants at work. Does anyone know the names of any of his advisers?

    Since starting this blog, I have had the privilege of speaking with a number of well connected people. Apparently, the stories on Whyte are ready to run but no newspaper wants to be seen as having caused the deal to collapse. So they are letting this run its course and will go public when it is clearly not happening.

    More than anything else, I notice that one media outlet at a time gets each rumour. That maximises the effect. If this was true, would they not go all out and tell all their media friends that “it is a done deal” all at the same time?

  45. HMRC will not even waste a second consider collections strategy until they have a decision.

  46. No one will provide more finance for Ibrox than the redevelopment value of Ibrox.
    Anyone got estimates for how much that would be?

  47. Ray Charles says:

    I am paranoid too droid.

    Rangers chairman Alastair Johnston said last May:

    He said: “The tax enquiry is an ongoing investigation and an ongoing mission from the Inland Revenue which has been around for several years.

    “It’s a standard situation where an assessment is presented, SOME WITH HOPE FAITH AND CHARITY involved by the Revenue, and we then either accept, or reject, or appeal it.”

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks/chairman-alastair-johnston-maps-out-his-plan-for-rangers-1.1030769

    What an odd thing to say.

    Unless you hang about with people who don’t think it is an odd thing to say as it is a familiar refrain to them.

  48. Sir Dirty Money says:

    Ray Charles, it’s 2am and tiredness may be affecting my vision but I can’t see your quote in the Evening Times article. It is a very strange thing to say though. Any idea what it actually means?

  49. Sir Dirty Money says:

    Just reread the article and found the quote. Speed reading is not my forte it seems. Apologies.

  50. Torquemada says:

    fan ban in Europe plus a fine on the way from Uefa. Martin Bain in yet another pathetic attempt at ‘whataboutery’, while at the same time saying the club is doing all it can to get rid of the bigots.

    Er, no it’s not, Martin. It might be better if you asked the fans to refrain from singing their filth because it was disgusting and wrong, not merely because it could get the club into trouble.

    This could be the excuse to walk away that Whyte is looking for unless he is indeed what many are beginning to suspect, a shill for Murray.

%d bloggers like this: