Martin Bain: Defending The Indefensible

Anyone else struck by the undignified tone coming from Rangers’ Chief Executive Martin Bain in recent days?

His statement released after the shocking decisions from the SFA disciplinary meeting yesterday included the following:
We are, however, disappointed that our players’ misconduct was, in the opinion of the disciplinary committee, to be of a significantly serious nature and we will study the reasons for this when they are given in writing.”

In response to the sectarianism charges from UEFA, Bain said:
“We do, however, believe that it is absurd to think that only Rangers supporters sing offensive or sectarian songs. That is patently not the case and we are left to conclude that there is a disproportionate focus on Rangers. It has also become clear there are people who have been determined to undermine our Club at any cost and have constantly lobbied UEFA and other organisations to take action against Rangers.”

Tortured logic and simple denial are evident in both quotes.  Even when handed a gift that he could not have expected from the SFA (unless he had been informed in advance), Bain tries to boost his credentials as a defender of his club and their fans.  He is obviously playing to the cheap seats.  Much maligned in the past by many Rangers fans for what they saw as a failure to defend them in the litany of troubles created in their recent European adventures, Bain seems eager to ingratiate himself with the club’s more extreme elements.

That he would want to mend bridges with the FollowFollow crowd is understandable.  For a family man who lives just outside Glasgow, knowing what the future is likely to hold must weigh on him terribly.  There must be an awful fear that as Chief Executive during most of the period when the EBT scam was in operation, he will be held responsible.  There is a better-than-evens chance that he could be the last Chief Executive of The Rangers Football Club plc.  Imagine the scorn that will be directed his way when it becomes clear that not only is the tax case a real threat to the existence of the club, but that Bain has participated in downplaying the risks while knowing the full facts.  His actions have hampered Rangers fans’ abilities to prepare for the worst case scenario.  There are many fans who would never forgive him once the seriousness of the club’s situation becomes widely accepted.

Imagine how they would feel if they thought that his culpability extended beyond merely failing to stop the plan, but if they were to discover that he was also a significant beneficiary of the scheme?  Such a conflict of interest would surely tear away any coat of armour Mr. Bain thinks he is building through his newly discovered gruff voice.

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.

134 Responses to Martin Bain: Defending The Indefensible

  1. Ian Ferguson says:

    You are wrong in this.

    The SFA reapproached Lennon’s offence and increased it by looking at other factors.

    If you are honest, the same approach would have brought an increase in McCoist’s sentence.

    He is not going into the Celtifc area, veins bulging to say well done.

    As for Douf, you have to be joking, I could quote at least Chargeable offences for him.

    Bougie, 2 assualts on the ref. Racist/Facist chants.

    I’ll stop there and quote ” There are NONE so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE”

  2. Boab says:

    Something just occurred, sorry if it’s a bit random.

    Does anyone think that Private Eye has an anti-Craig Whyte, anti-Rangers agenda. Or is this article really very good corroboration that David Murray selling to Craig Whyte would not be him having Rangers’ best interests at heart. Which is what he has claimed all along.

    The Rangers support are seeing Craig Whyte as some sort of potential saviour (I have never understood this position). Surely this from PE will make some more of them think again.

  3. Ian Ferguson says:

    I remember reading on Phil Mac that he asked Bain if he was a recipient of the scheme?
    reply?….. THAT’S between ME and the TAXMAN….. Take that as a YES then?

  4. Davie says:

    C’mon RTC!.

    Your postings have up until now been relevant and interesting.

    This latest I’m afraid to say is your poorest offering yet and offers no further information or analysis of the Rangers v HMRC tribunal or RFC finances and I fail to see it’s relevance.

    What happened to rising above the mudslinging!?.

    Stick to reporting the facts and finances….it’s far more entertaining. I could read a thousand posts like the one you just made on KDS or CM.

  5. Ian Ferguson says:

    You again miss the POINT.

    If RFC are in the wrong he should be trying to CHANGE the perceived wrong, NOT defend it.

  6. droid says:

    Good sir, know ye not that Private Eye are well known for their exceedingly sharp wit and sarcasm?

    The detail infers a well deserved hand fasting as at least Mr Whyte has significant experience of the processes around administration and even liquidation.

    The question for me is whether he has a causal effect or whether he targets an ailing business for some personal gain.

    I extend my sympathies to those who buy the 3 season ticket book, if vulnerbale pensioners are fare game what chance others?

  7. greencar20 says:

    From this weeks private eye mag: the full article


    Sorry greencar, but the PE article is already published further up the list of replies, so in the interests of keeping this readable, I have chopped your post.

  8. Mark Dickson says:


    YOU again miss the point – I don’t care about Rangers OR Celtic and after all the shenanigans and off-field nonsense, claim / counter-claim, it wiz them it wisnae us, they started it etc etc I and most other non Old Firm fans are just utterly sick of the farce this season has become. Almost every ot her day there is some fresh Old Firm controversy and in my opinion both clubs have been as bad as each other and as equally to blame about the talking points being more about off-field issues than events on the pitch. It’s been a disgraceful season for Scottish football and thankfully it will soon be over though no doubt the recriminations will continue after it’s over as neither team wants to lose out on the single Champions League place and no doubt that has heightened tensions as both clubs desperately need that money. Rangers fans have their racist/sectarian scumbag element – what’s news in that? They have always been cave-men and a stain on Scottish society but given some of the people who support your club and the songs they sing I wouldn’t claim the moral high ground. Apologies if I have an opinion you don’t like or agree with.

  9. Justinian says:


    I do not know if you have fully read all of the 9 RTC Blogs to date and the (now approaching) 1,000 Blog responses. I do not accept that RTC has veered off the narrow, self-imposed scope of his efforts ie what you consider as (very occasional IMO) “straying” is more than relevant to the Blog toipic.

    Even if I accept your premise (which I do not) then the instances of what you infer are exceptionally small in number and do not make one whit of difference to the main thrust of the Blog.

  10. Ian Ferguson says:

    It has been expanding and relevant in that the Cavalier Attitude of RFC and their officials are carried into other areas.

    it is also relevant that these areas are of SFA jurisdiction and the SFA seem to concur with RFC, both in the thuggish action of their, to be, manager and the red carded players.

    the fact that the SFA has not acted against Fascist/Rascist actions and songs by RFC supporters make the SFA suspect..

    If suspicions are there in these areas, then the suspicion that replication in fiscal and licence areas must also be relevant.

    We have reached a point where the SFA are so biased that UEFA must step in or admit they are just as culpable.

  11. Mark Dickson says:

    I too think there is a market for truth seeking and hard-hitting journalism – I just wish it was available in the mainstream news sources of paper, television and radio which are still the main points of reference & information for the majority of the populace than internet sites which whilst fast growing still remain a niche interest ………….. this is an excellent site with great informed debate and has thus far avoided most of the totally blinkered view-points of both sides of Old Firm teams fan base. I do wish more supporters of the other teams would post their opinions though as it really is a massive issue that affects us all.

  12. Ian Ferguson says:

    That was some reply, you admit to all the points I made earlier and THEN try to defend Bain’s stance.

    Everyone else is to blame!

    What was that song? Remember, when the Guy is completely wrong but says ” It wasn’t ME.

    Well, that is RANGERS!

    Every defence you offer, is that it wisnae THEM or you done other things.

    RFC are a disgrace!.

    Leaving tax issues out of the equation, let’s see, whats left?

    ILLEGAL? Racist, Fascist & Sectartian abuse? ALL are there to see and hear.

    So let’s examine this deplorable RFC situ.

    Has BAIN decried the illegal mince? Has he came out and opposed the RABID RFC supporters Chants or the RANCID behaviour of his Manager, to be, or players?.

    So Mark,, Look at The FACTS and come back and admit, that Bain is WRONG in trying to defend the indefensibnle.

  13. Thegreenbhoy says:

    I honestly do not think Private Eye have any major interest here

  14. Ian Ferguson says:

    There Mark goes AGAIN.

    That web talk came up with the result that the LAPTOP did not have TIME to investigate WHYTE…

    It was pointed out that FERGUS was investigated in 11 HOURS.. Reply? There are NOT so many reporters now!

    Laptop MINCE,

    There are now more FACTS at your fingertips than reporters then, it is just that the LAPTOP Won’t REPORT them.

  15. Mark Dickson says:


    Of course Bain is wrong – any reasonable thinking person can see that it doesn’t have to be stated.

    I also think your a wee bit nuts and a rabid-Rangers-hating-blinkered-Celt who thinks that anyone who doesn’t explicitly condemn der Hun is ergo wittingly or unwittingly part of some grand-over-arching Hun conspiracy …….. meanwhile I and many others are totally sick of all this infantile Old Firm playground behaviour and infighting and rightly or wrongly think that both sides are as each other in fanning the flames. But this is an unworthy sideshow that detracts from the generally high quality debate on this site. We clearly hold different viewpoints so lets just leave it at that. 🙂

  16. I do not see the issue in moral terms. It is a question of understanding the law and adhering to it.
    There is a clear distinction between occasionally stepping over the line of legality when you decide to walk very close to the edge and consciously continuing with a tax scheme which you know to be illegal.
    Once you know that you are defrauding the national treasury, it takes a lot of balls to embrace patriotism as your cause- and yours alone. To parade soldiers at Ibrox while knowingly perpetrating a scam that would see less money available to pay for them and their equipment is a bit sickening.

  17. Ian Ferguson says:


    Two HANDS ON the REF chargesover-looked.

    Check the reaction to Lennon & the Holy Goalie, nowhere near as volatile, or deliberate or prolonged as Duef’s offences.

    McCoist tried to go into Celtic’s Tech Area, is restrained by a member of Celtic’s Staff., his veins bulging.

    Under the LENNON Rule of looking at ” other circumstances” he should have had his verdict doubled.

    Add Racist, Fascist chants.

    Will somebody explain the Rangers not guilty, we are offended bullshine to me, I missed their point.

  18. Sir Dirty Money says:

    I know this is off topic but rush out and shares in Staples now. If the SFA decide to sue Paul McBride WC they’ll clear the shop of shredders in no time. 😉

  19. As with others, we will have to agree to disagree. The post builds the case for explaining Martin Bain’s recent behaviour in the context of the Armageddon which awaits Rangers on his watch. While the post starts by painting a picture that could perhaps be found on any messageboard, it does so to set the landscape for its key point.

    A director of a football club who failed to disclose a conflict of interest in a tax scheme on which he had to sign-off on its legitimacy is made all of the more significant if the same director’s behaviour and rhetoric has suddenly taken a lurch towards populism.

    “What happened to rising above the mudslinging!?.”
    Where did I ever promise this? To be quite frank, mudslinging is the entire point of this blog.
    That the mud is generally factual and data-based makes this blog different. If the qualitative nature of the post is what is irking people, I can see (and would accept) that as criticism. The quantative and analytical approach might well be what draws people here.

    I would like to make one point clear: I have also not promised to stay within any notional boundaries or defined subject matter. I have said that I do not want to see (and will not allow) posts that are just moronic or sectarian in nature. I have trimmed some responses to earlier posts that were not addressing the the subject of the post, but this has mushroomed to a point where I do not have the time to keep things that neatly trimmed.

    I have reserved my venom on this blog for those who deserve it most: Rangers’ directors who signed-off on this mess, and the corrupt and venal media pack. Together, they developed a disinformation campaign on a scale to make Josef Goebels’ heart swell with pride. I will continue to vent my spleen on these targets.

    If there is any justified criticism of this post (other than perhaps not being as interesting as the others) it is in making an incidental reference to yesterday’s SFA disciplinary committee decisions. That is perhaps going outside of what this blog should be covering.
    Defending this is getting boring.

  20. Ian Ferguson says:


    That scenario doesn’t make sense.

    Take it bit by bit.

    The BANK holds RFC in it’s mitt.

    Big problem!

    It also has MIH by the proverbials.

    When MIH missed their repayments the bank took an equity for debt solution. On paper that is ok. In reality, a RFC overvaluation is helping balance MIH ‘s out of kilter finances.

    This creates another problem, a sale of RFC deflates MIH’s balance sheet.

    On the other hand, retention could make the BANK responsible for any HMRC bill if it came to pass.

    The BANK has security over both MIH and RFC.

    MIH has been selling off assets to try to get to a more realistic position on their debt exposure.

    There are Draconian terms attached to MIH in the event of not meeting future commitments.

    Lloyds and MIH are not in a position to accept any HMRC sanctions.
    In my opinion, if Whyte does not step in, and a sanctions came to fruition,then the BANK will defend it’s position.

    The only other RFC saving scenario I can visualise is that MINTY is an Honourable man & will accept the debt, if it happens, as his.

    Minty is in the process of transferring his OWN funds to an Irish offshore account.

    In my opinion Minty AINT gonna cash in the Premium Bonds to come to RFC aid.

  21. Ian Ferguson says:

    They are PAID to know.

    If it was not for the ongoing 48 hr bull I would MAYBE believe that they don’t know… NOT

    It has been played like a stuck trout everytime it suits them .

    CFC v RFC games, Bad news for RFC, Bad news for MIH roll lt out.

    I would think then that any suggestion of laptop lack of knowledge is BULL

  22. Mark Dickson says:

    Well I totally agree with all of that Ian – what I meant though is I can’t get my head around what is being reported in that it’s often been repeated they ‘understand’ that if the takeover goes through Whyte & Rangers will somehow be protected against a hefty HMRC tax bill……….logically there are only a few possibilities ie

    1. Nobody pays the Tax-Bill because Rangers somehow win the tribunal and appeals
    2. Whyte if he buys Rangers pays the tax-bill
    3. Whyte buys Rangers but somebody else pays the tax-bill ie
    a. MIH
    or b. Murray personally
    4. Nobody pays the tax-bill because regardless if the takeover happens or not Rangers are plunged into administration and simply would not raise enough at a fire sale to settle all creditors.

  23. I Still See No Subs Except... says:

    Only if/because you choose to see it that way…

    The tax case clearly has implicaitons for Rangers officials if they have benefitted from the EBT and a conflict of interest exists.

    Mr Whyte’s takeover is closely associated with the case for a number of reasons, not least that that, to put it mildly, represents a significant facet of any deal wrt the company’s liabilities – Mr Whyte’s mysterious backgorund may offer some insight as to how that issue will be approached, or not.

    Of course, if you would prefer, perhaps you will get more insight form the Daily Retread or some other similalry balanced journal?

    For myself, whilst there has regrettably, if inevitably, been some anti-Rangers sentiment in some of the responses, RTC has displayed little “hate”, beyond his obvious (and justified IMO) contempt for our shoddy press, and some of the directors who have taken Rangers to this perilous state of affairs.

    If anything, this blog evidences more respect and regard for Rangers than those of a less honest dispositon on the matter (see above).

    If this ever does become just another Rangers hating-site, then its crediblity, and therefore interest, are lost to me. – which clearly would be a “win” for those who would prefer to achieve just such a desired outcome – and return us all to the “mushroom principle” as far as the truth is concerned.

    However I have to say that despite, on the face of it, your comments asserting a move toward that sorry outcome, I’m simply, like the DR, not buying it.

  24. Angel says:

    Mark’s response here is exactly why Celtic and it’s fans must rid ourselves of this ‘Old Firm’ tag. We are being tainted by association to Rangers.

  25. Angel says:

    RTC just copy and paste:

    “If you don’t like it, you know what to do.”

  26. Barney says:

    “Rangers’ directors who signed-off on this mess”

    Was Campbell Ogilvie one of the directors?

    If you can’t say you could always nod.

  27. Sir Dirty Money says:

    I know this is off topic but rush out and buy shares in Staples now. If the SFA decide to sue Paul McBride WC they’ll clear the shop of shredders in no time. 😉

  28. droid says:

    Would there be any implications for the forthcoming succession to Mr Peat if Mr Ogilvie is implicated?

    Could make above SFA references less of topic.

  29. droid says:

    today may not be any better –

    is this the first wobble to topple their jenga?

  30. I am working on an entire new post as a response. More to this question than you might think.

  31. mike says:

    The blog is brilliant really interesting was reading until 1.30am very addictive Im shocked that Scotlands media are turning blind eye to all this!
    quick question would I be correct in saying that its C09 investigation and RFC will have had to prepare a disclosure report over the last 6 months which would have to declare all liabilites?
    Have HMRC uncovered anything more of note other than the EBT scheme?
    what day is FTT sitting?

  32. Cammy says:

    So would you personally be happy to benefit from an EBT?

  33. Personally? As someone who does not wrap himself in cloying nationalism or crassly exploit serving soldiers returning from war-zones? I would be happy to participate in any tax efficiency program which had a substantial body of case law behind it to demonstrate that it is clearly legal. Rangers FC did not do this. If you have been keeping up, you would realise that no one is saying that properly administered EBTs are illegal or immoral. If the laws are poorly written and have been proven to allow for such schemes, then there is no point in volunteering to pay more than the law provides for. I am not sure what tax bracket you are in, but I have not heard of many people volunteering to pay more than is necessary at any income level.

    I think I know the point you were trying to make. I hope that I have answered this question to you full satisfaction.

  34. Boab says:

    Would it be OK if I was to confess that your reply made me LOL RTC.


%d bloggers like this: