Making sense of nonsense


The Scottish sports media has set new standards of incompetence and pandering over the proposed Craig Whyte deal to buy Rangers.  The conventional story being fed by PR agencies working on behalf of both Whyte and Sir David Murray is that Whyte will pay off the bank debt (with the implication that the debt will stay at zero), that Ally McCoist will be handed a fantastic sum to rebuild the team, and that the tax bill will be “handled”.  Of course, these stories never quite explain how a bill that could be £54-60m will be “handled”.  These PR placement stories seem to treat the tax case as if it is a trivial issue which is not going to be a significant issue in Rangers’ future.

However, for all of the nonsense from journalists who earn a salary doing no more than typing their names on the by-lines of articles written for them by others, I am told that Whyte’s efforts to conclude a deal are gathering pace.  Whyte is working hard to finalise financing that would clear the bank debt (£20m on 30 June 2010) and would allow Lloyds Banking Group to wash its hands of Rangers.  It is understood that the amount that would be paid for Rangers’ shares is collapsing and approaching a price close to zero pence.  This would allow Sir David Murray to be off-stage should the Grim Reaper appear on the scene.  The tax liability would remain with Rangers FC.

The remaining issues centre on Dave King’s 5% shareholding.  The combination of MIH’s 85% and King’s 5% (held through Metlika Trading) would meet the 90% threshold required to force all of Rangers’ shareholders to sell at the same terms offered to MIH and King.  With 100% of Rangers’ shares, Whyte would be able to take The Rangers Football Club plc private.  With a privately owned company, Whyte would be free to conduct business without the transparency required of a plc.

However, there are challenges to obtaining King’s 5%.  King is still prevented by court orders in England and Scotland from buying or selling assets in the UK.  The recent transfer of ownership of Rangers’ shares from Murray Sports Limited to Metlika Trading was permitted as it was seen as a ‘value-neutral’ administrative transaction.  However, a sale of these shares, even for a very low amount, could be a legal minefield.  The other issue is that a businessman like King is unlikely to surrender a keystone position for free.  If his stake is essential to throw a dark cloak around Whyte’s plans for Rangers, then King will want to extract a fee.  Of course, there are ways to structure such a transaction.  King could take an equivalent value shareholding in whichever legal entity Whyte wishes to use as the vehicle for owning Rangers.  That could again be considered a value-neutral exchange.  (A “consulting-fee” paid from one obscure company in the Caribbean to another would be very difficult to trace too).

No doubt if a deal is concluded it will be accompanied by a media blitz celebrating a new era for Rangers and how nothing but blue-skies are ahead.  Missing from these PR-agency articles will be the treatment of the tax bills.  I am told that the tax bills will remain with Rangers.  In effect nothing in Rangers’ financial position will have changed except that Lloyds and Murray, two parties that would have been dreading being seen to take tough actions will have managed to get off-stage.  Rangers fans need to ask themselves about the new owner: is Craig Whyte a ruthless financial operator who will think nothing of maximising his personal gain or is he a lifelong Rangers fan taking on the burden to protect and rescue the team he loves?

Those who believe that Craig Whyte is simply a devoted Rangers fan with fathomless wealth who is prepared to use a lot of it for the betterment of his team should ask to see evidence of his devotion to the club.  How many years has he been a season ticket holder?  Where are the photos of young Craig Whyte in his Rangers top?  Before the information age, Celtic fans were assured of Fergus McCann’s bone fides within a couple of days of his name being mentioned in the media.  The Scottish media have been strangely silent about the result of the investigations into the affairs of Craig Whyte.

Is Craig Whyte a heartless asset-stripper who will not waste valuable resources on legal fees for further appeals if HMRC win against Rangers in the First Tier Tribunal?  Or is he a scene-stealing hero arriving to save the day?  Rangers supporters groups who have lined up to celebrate the arrival of Whyte have failed their members by not doing their own due diligence on this man.  Of course, in the absence of anyone else, they may feel that they have no choice.

The recurring theme of this blog is “it is all about the tax case”.  This has not changed.  A Whyte takeover will not alter the fate that awaits Rangers FC.  All that will be changed is that people who would have been reluctant to be seen to bring down the axe on Rangers FC have been replaced by someone whom few of us know much about.

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.

96 Responses to Making sense of nonsense

  1. gorillainaroom says:

    Still, just another 48 hours to go….. Just some more laundering, sorry – ironing to be done.

  2. Jacqui bradley says:

    Fantastic article yet again !!!!!!! How long do you think it will be between the takeover and administration/liquidation?

  3. Seamus says:

    oh how, oh how
    do the bluenose fail to see
    that the taxman cometh
    and the rangers may cease to be

  4. Steve says:

    Jacqui bradley says:
    26/04/2011 at 7:35 pm
    Fantastic article yet again !!!!!!! How long do you think it will be between the takeover and administration/liquidation?

    Reply
    48 hours??? There would be a few things to iron out first!

  5. Apivotalfortyeighthoursinthemiddleofnextweek says:

    will the decision that the tribunal makes be made public before the end of the season?

  6. No. The case will end at latest the end of next week. (It was scheduled for 3 weeks, but was not expected to require all of that time).

    The judges will go away and consider the evidence individually. They will then meet to discuss the case and arrive at a decision. They then have to write up their decision. I would be very surprised if the decision is published before the end of June and could be as late as September. (Actually there is no fixed timeline for how late it could be). The judgement will be published on the Tribunals Service website. It will be annonymised and will not specifically reference Rangers FC. However, I will post the link on here and will provide a commentary explaining the key findings.

  7. Jacqui bradley says:

    Ha ha ha, it WAS a stupid question lol

  8. Celticbhoy67 says:

    If the tribunal goes in HMRC’s favour – would they not be the most preferred creditor ahead of even the Lloyds debt. In which case would the administrator not set aside a Whyte transaction which favoured Lloyds over all other creditors?

  9. Blankety Blank cheque book but where's the pen? says:

    I can understand why LTSB and Murray want to distance themselves from rangers as the taxman winning is gonna send the rangers faithful into permarage as the financial implications are reported.

    Looking forward to the case verdict and I trust justice will be done. I’m a taxpayer and would like to think HMRC will recover every single penny due.

    Another good read RTC 🙂

  10. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    The reporting of this embarrassing farce is now beyond laughable. And mister once-media-hungry-and-full-of-bravado-but-now-stangely-invisible-and-silent-but-still-managing-to-controll-his-media-puppets-with-ease-from-the-shadows Murray must be lying back with a cigar in one hand and a glass of brandy in the other safe in the knowledge that he can do anything he wants. Absolutely anything, and his willing sycophants who speak his word as fact, history and future in the press will write whatever he decides is fact for the day without a single question of his wreckless actions that have crippled a football club.

    Are his media lapdogs… A) Just honest Rangers lovers? B) Scared of him? C) Part of some kind of secret club where favours are asked and carried out without question? D) Just incompetent at their job? E) Too used to sitting around under the old firm table like a dog waiting for tit bits, too fat and lazy to go looking for food of their own?

    One day, far into the future, a book will be written about this, but it wont be made into a film. No, the story is far too ridiculous and far-fetched to make it into even the wildest of fantasy films.

  11. vinnie says:

    Great work – keep it coming

  12. Weefatbhoy says:

    Blog of the year m8……………………….

  13. Andy fitzpatrick says:

    Scotland’s shame v scotland’s sham.
    Can you ask any of the media hacks why they have not got story one about the whyte in shining armour’s history or as you say a picture of baby sh,,,, sorry whyte in a rangers bib.
    Me thinks the guy is full of shi ite.

  14. The thing that interests me is the statement (on BBC’s website) regarding the “one or two minor details to be ironed out with Lloyds Bank, who currently handle the club’s debt”

    … I wonder what these are … If I were Lloyds my two minor details would be very clear and very simple
    1) repay the debt in full, in one lump sum.
    2) do not ask Lloyds to be involved with rangers in any way whatsoever post your purchase – in essence tell Whyte to take rangers’ custom to another bank … perhaps Aidrie Savings Bank … David Murray may be able to put in a good word for him.

    The two key points prevents history repeating itself as:
    1) rangers cannot run up new debt with Lloyds -football teams are predominantly loss making organisations.
    2) it prevents Lloyds being put in the no win position of failing to help rangers out again when the tax bill finally does register.

    The risk of being an unwilling partner is removed, and the honour of the man who led rangers to failure & administration will be Mr Whyte & this new financial services supplier. (Coincidently I would thought being the billionaire business tycoon he would have many suitors anyway, so would not need Lloyds).

    The bottom line is I believe Lloyds are the key decision maker in all of this. If their terms are not met, no deal with happen … and I firmly believe they want a clean break., with no option of a return.

    The part nationalised RBS jumped at the chance to get away from Liverpool & the debt mountain they had. I see no reason why the part nationalised Lloyds would be any different regarding rangers.

    A clean break is the perfect result for Lloyds – they get all their money back, with no future liabilities.

  15. Juan Nighstand says:

    Can someone clear something up for me?
    Sorry to appear a bit thick, but there’s something that doesn’t seem to have been answered yet.

    If the deal goes through and Whyte manages to pay Lloyds off who then becomes the clubs bankers? If he is indeed going to leverage this purchase by loading the debt onto the club, who do they then owe the money to?

    I know that not to many years ago the worlds banks produced money from thin air which broke the world economy,so surely now there must be some hard cash having to be put up somewhere?

    So surely no lender worth their salt would take on such a risk?

  16. Apivotalfortyeighthoursinthemiddleofnextweek says:

    ok, thanks for the reply.

  17. No. HMRC is an unsecured creditor. The secured and preferred creditors must be paid out in full before the unsecured creditors receive a penny.
    The challenge is that for a deal to be done to keep Rangers’ alive i.e. someone would come in and offer to buy the club in administration, HMRC have to agree (given that they will have the biggest claim).

    So HMRC must face the challenge of the danger of allowing Rangers to reemerge without paying their tax bill versus the outcry from their fans if they put them to the sword. I don’t know for a fact how this will be viewed but my money is on them preferring the value of Rangers as a dead body in the street as a warning to other tax cheats.

  18. Whyte & his backers will simply convert their “investment” to debt rather than considering it to be equity (i.e. shares). There are numerous ways this could happen, but the mechanics are not important.

    Buying Rangers does not make any sense unless you get the protection of having priority over HMRC in an administration process resulting from the tax case.

    Shareholders are at the end of the line in bankruptcy proceedings, so you want to hold debt, and you want that debt to be at the top of the food chain with security interests in Rangers’ assets.

  19. No commercial bank will be within a mile of this deal. Whyte’s backers will be distressed asset investors.

    This deal, for all its media interest, is very small. It is actually far too small to attract the major distressed asset investors. So, it is likely to be 1-2 individuals who have some experience in this field but who are not major players.

  20. I know you have touched on this before, but in your view, do you believe Whyte will be sucessful in doing this?

    As the HMRC have provided their bill to rangers, then would any act to do this not be [successfully] disputed by hmrc – in effect it is simply another tax avoidance ploy?

  21. Slimshady says:

    The case will not be anonymised – that does not happen anymore except where there are matters of national security.

    Despite any arguments Jim Traynor may advance, this is not, repeat “NOT”, a matter of national security.

  22. Stephen says:

    Re Amin/Liquidation etc.. Do you not reckon that no matter how the local HMRC feel about the case the higher ups (Dave Hartnett?) will step in and save Rangers by forcing a copout resolution ..i.e. do a ‘Vodafone”?

  23. Annie M says:

    Seems to me Murray has been desperately seeking another rival bid which will bring him and Rangers more cash. If he wasn’t then he would just have sold to Whyte whatever the ‘independent panel’ said. They have no veto over a sale, Murray can do that he likes. If he is procrastinating and they are objecting then the reason is surely self interest. They don’t want to lose their cosy number on the board or their club blazer and tie. So they voice opposition and hold things up while Murray desperately seeks an alternative. It’s clear these people don’t want to sell to Whyte. They are being backed into a corner.

  24. Towbar34 says:

    First off…..power to your words RTC…a truly amazing site giving information too long hidden by Scotland’s fourth estate.

    I’ve read every post you’ve written and almost every comment made and relish the time (not too far in the future) when the walls indeed come tumbling down.

    A few observations for your consideration:

    1. Is Craig Whyte really no more than a front man for Mr Murray?
    2. Would you consider the possibility that an environment is being created where the extinction of RFC may actually be an acceptable way of removing a focal point for anti-catholic/Irish racism that has existed for more than a century?
    3. Is the vigour with which HMRC are pursuing RFC being misunderstood to such a level where some (RFC minded) people actually believe what is being printed on a daily basis by the Scottish press?
    4. can we expect to see the Same press members pursue a negative campaign against the officers of HMRC that have taken the current action against RFC whereby placing their lives in danger via IEDs and the like as has been the case with Celtic minded folk of late?

    When I started to realise that I was lucky enough to witness the entire period when the most recent of true Celtic legend took to the field of play (Henrik) I believed that that was the pinnacle of my time supporting my team – to now find myself in the position that I may actually witness the demise of RFC is truly astounding and at times even for an educated person such as myself -difficult to comprehend.

    I look forward to your future postings in relation to the actual result of the FTT with a child like excitement I never thought I could again experience.

    Many thanks for providing a chink of lit in what is the darkness of the best wee country in the world.

    Hail Hail.

  25. Lord Wobbly says:

    The Portuguese superstar who transferred from the Spanish First Division to Lloyds seems to want all sideshows and distractions removed, including insurance and investment arms and, presumably, a football appendix. And I suspect sooner rather than later, hence the hasty u-turn by the ‘independent’ board. Pressure having been applied?

    It may be that our ‘independent’ media HAVE completed due diligence on the Whyte Knight. But that what they’ve found has left them so traumatised that they have, rather cleverly, decided to withhold publication so that HMRC take the blame for the surgical removal of the aforementioned appendix. The Fourth Estate (sounds so dignified doesn’t it) don’t need to get their hands dirty because the tax case is already in the public domain.

  26. Boab says:

    I have said this elsewhere, if Whyte (plus others) take on the debt from Lloyds that surely cannot mean Rangers consider themselves to be “debt free” Don’t confuse Whyte, the major shareholder with Whyte the person who now “owns the debt” It is not the same person to all intents and purposes, just two separate characters who find each other very easy to deal with.

    All Rangers are doing is moving their debt from a major bank to venture capitalists as far as I can see. They will want that money paid back and then some. There is no way Whyte and his backers are in it for the love of Rangers, well I haven’t seen any evidence to support that. They will be able to do what they want, as the board and major shareholder will be totally compliant. They will be the creditor and the debtor, effectively playing both hands in a game of cards.

    That is obviously if the deal is structured that way, and it sounds from the material discussed here that it is. If Whyte can then move both of his faces behind closed doors then he can do whatever he want, at least for a year. HMRC will be able to look at his books and examine how it is structured, how everything fits together but no-one else will.

    Thing is, David Murray, the man who is only acting in Rangers’ best interests knows all of this. His legacy may end up even more tarnished than we thought it would be.

  27. ciarans Dad says:

    In what circumstances do you get priority over HMRC as I was always under the impression that when you go tits up, all creditors were equal.
    Also let’s say he manages to secure his investments, is there a risk that this could be seen as tax avoidance and would be dragged into court by lizzies finest?

  28. Auldheid says:

    Assuming Lloyds cut all ties with Rangers, which bank is going to provide them with the normal facilities a football club requires to see them through a season? Just wondering like 🙂

  29. Droid says:

    New mystery european bidder emerges –

    “Plenty White is a perfect match for messes of all shapes and sizes”

    “Make scrubbing up messes an art form as you tackle tough tasks with Plenty”

    Says Juan Sheet: “all over the United of Kingdom the peeepul are suffering at the filthy hands of the spills. But now they need fear no more. For they can call my spill helpline – with no charge – and I, Juan Sheet, shall save them all.”

    Helpline number 0800 276 1111

    http://www.plenty.co.uk/home.html

  30. Auldheid says:

    snap

  31. ciarans Dad says:

    Let’s all remember that the imminent deal that has now been imminent for almost 5 months but is imminently imminent soon is a deal that to my knowledge has not had any actual statement of intent in any chip wrapper or other form of media from the eminent trillionaire, soon to be, dark lord of the orcs.
    Don’t know bout you but if it was someone buying Celtic I would be more than a tad uneasy if all I knew was what’s been in the papers about the’Whyte Knight’

    How many more times can jabba and his ilk trot out the same pash to pacify the slabbering hordes of snake mountain..
    I’m now starting to think he may actually buy them, for what purpose I do not know, but as I tarnish my very being and gaze upon the rejoicing of the ‘follow followers’ a wee saying keeps popping into my mind……..
    “be careful what you wish for” Oh! And while were on sayings relevant to the fakeover here’s a very relevant one from ‘Chewing the fat’
    “I smell shite”

  32. It will certainly not be a Vodaphone situation, but what I don’t think anyone can predict just now is HMRC’s strategy to getting a payout.
    To be frank, there are not many scenarios that will see them get anything back from this case. It is important because it sets precedent for a number of other clubs and businesses that have been misusing EBTs in the same way. As their own tax advisor said, Rangers are the test case for using EBTs to pay contractual obligations. (And there were a few aspects of what Rangers have done that Mr. Baxendale-Walker does not appear to know).

    In the end HMRC face the choice: get the precedent and then lose interest because they will never get anything out of RFC, but have Rangers held up as an example that if you can box cleverly you can avoid paying taxes or Rangers are left hanging from a rope in the town square as a warning to all others who might be thinking of messing with the taxman?

    Given embarrassing situations like Vodaphone, my money is on the latter. I think (but have no means of knowing about how this aspect of the case will be handled) that HMRC need a very high-profile corpse to crush all of the myths about HMRC accepting pennies on the pound settlements and so on.

  33. AndyM says:

    RTC – have you heard anything from the actual hearing? What evidence has been presented etc. Also does anyone have any idea of when the SPL consider one season to have finished and a new season begins? As in which season would any points deduction be applied to this season or the one that will start in July/August?

  34. JJ says:

    Slimshady says:
    26/04/2011 at 8:59 pm
    The case will not be anonymised – that does not happen anymore except where there are matters of national security.
    Despite any arguments Jim Traynor may advance, this is not, repeat “NOT”, a matter of national security

    Slimshady – The new Tribunal rules allow the hearing to be in private (and subsequent anonymisation of the decision) for a lot more than national security. They rules state –

    Public and private hearings
    32.—(1) Subject to the following paragraphs, all hearings must be held in public.
    (2) The Tribunal may give a direction that a hearing, or part of it, is to be held in private if the
    Tribunal considers that restricting access to the hearing is justified—
    (a) in the interests of public order or national security;
    (b) in order to protect a person’s right to respect for their private and family life;
    (c) in order to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information;
    (d) in order to avoid serious harm to the public interest; or
    (e) because not to do so would prejudice the interests of justice.
    (3) Where a hearing, or part of it, is to be held in private, the Tribunal may determine who is
    permitted to attend the hearing or part of it.
    (4) The Tribunal may give a direction excluding from any hearing, or part of it—

    (a) any person whose conduct the Tribunal considers is disrupting or is likely to disrupt the
    hearing;
    (b) any person whose presence the Tribunal considers is likely to prevent another person
    from giving evidence or making submissions freely;
    (c) any person where the purpose of the hearing would be defeated by the attendance of that
    person; or
    (d) a person under the age of eighteen years.
    (5) The Tribunal may give a direction excluding a witness from a hearing until that witness
    gives evidence.
    (6) If the Tribunal publishes a report of a decision resulting from a hearing which was held
    wholly or partly in private, the Tribunal must, so far as practicable, ensure that the report does not
    disclose information which was referred to only in a part of the hearing that was held in private
    (including such information which enables the identification of any person whose affairs were
    dealt with in the part of the hearing that was held in private) if to do so would undermine the
    purpose of holding the hearing in private.

  35. Michael says:

    Seamus says:
    26/04/2011 at 7:37 pm

    oh how, oh how
    do the bluenose fail to see
    that the taxman cometh
    and the rangers may cease to be

    do you know about http://www.footballpoets.org/ ?
    publish there to another audience.

  36. As mentioned before, I am not going to discuss any of the proceedings until we have a result. I do not want to provide any basis for admissability of evidence to be questioned or to irritate the judges.

    I will have some “very interesting” stuff to reveal after we get a result. Any result.

  37. Boab says:

    Does everyone really think that Rangers total assets would only bring in about £20m or so. I find that stunning. Surely the squad is worth something, and Murray Park.

    Total assets, not net, total worth twenty odd million. Surely not.

  38. Slimshady,
    See JJ’s comments below. He is correct. It does not have to be just national security grounds.
    If it starts in private (which it has- 100% certain of this), then subsequent publications have to redact much of the evidence. So it will almost certainly be fully anonymised.

  39. (Professionaly-faked IP) Steve says:

    Another interesting piece.

    Although your inside info is on the tax side you’re doing a very nice job of disecting the logic of the takeover saga. Finally the reasoning for anyone desiring to control this club (or meerly its assets) makes a lot of sense to me.

    This could all be dismissed as guesswork and fantasy by anyone who cared to do so, since I haven’t seen you claim to have any such insider feeding you gold from this side of things (perhaps I missed something in an earlier entry?). However, it won’t be; your statements follow nothing but the result of logical thought [i] [b]because[/b] [/i] of the neglect of the tax issue. Without that threat there would be 101 reasons and ways to control rangers. With it there is only one that makes it a feasable investment for anyone.

    My own suspisions that Sir Davy is involved are not gone though… doesn’t this seem like just the sort of thing he could talk someone into leading? And perhaps even help find a financier or two for Whyte. (if indeed he isn’t actually providing funds from his personal realm towards the deal… why not, if the security is water-tight? David Murray is nothing if not an expert in lining his own pockets) I have a grudging respect for that guy.

    That, though, is pure conjecture and the stuff of fiction for the moment. If, say, there were truth in my suspision, and what you have said were to happen regarding Whyte taking 100% ownership of rangers and going private… would there ever come a time -even during an administration or liquidation event- where those secured creditors would ever become known to the public?

    Again, all the best.

  40. Mark Dickson says:

    was the hearing held in private to prevent a lynch mob of orcs besieging the tribunal and also prejudicing the safety of those involved opposing RFC and deciding the result? Also the media could have reported daily on the latest sensational revalations? (don’t laugh!) …. I assume the officers of the court and judges didn’t fancy letter-bombs with their cornflakes?

  41. Me 2 says:

    who in their right mind would lend Whyte the money?

    what would they get in return for such a high risk loan?

  42. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    So………

    this is what I don’t get (most of this)

    if the fakeover is now GOING to happen – still looks tricky with Whyte not having the money himself, relying on getting D King shares and the minefield that could prove to be, Minty accepting NOTHING for his stake (surely MIH won’t be too happy about that as they recently pumped 51M into the huns)

    But lets say all those pieces fall into place

    It looks like a pretty decent exit strategy for Whyte – he is preferred creditor owning the secured debt, HMRC will be picking up scraps. But Whyte could get Ibrox and Murray park for next to nothing (well, when compared to their book value – hahahahaha)

    he can then sell murray park and get his money back (maybe not immediately in current climate) and then lease back Ibrox to Rangers (Rangers 2011 Ltd – i’m sure there woud be a new club formed from the ashes that bought teir league place and teh orvs clubbed in a few quid) – as well as use it for other occasional events in Glasgow – that could bring him in a nice little pension of a few million a year. Not bad at all.

    but what happens if they WIN the tax case? He’s left holding a money sapping monster that needs constant feeding with cash?

    How would he realise a return then? If he is just a vulture capitalist

    if course, this is an unlikely scenario……..but then again, the whole thing seems crazy, so i’m just thinking outside the circle.

  43. Boab says:

    People have a right to privacy under the terms of ECHR, however that must be balanced against the public interest (the public interest is not the same as “of interest to the public”). So if someone convinced the tribunal that this right would be breached sufficiently badly yhen they could order the privacy in order to preserve that right. It’s the same idea as inter-parte and ex-parte hearings.

    Bearing in mind this is a civil hearing in relation to a tax debt, as opposed to a criminal enquiry in relation to serious arrestable offences.

  44. Mark Dickson says:

    From Todays Herald…….

    Whyte, in contrast, had the basic blocks of his bid in place. He has reached an agreement with Sir David Murray for the businessman’s 93% share of the club and had deposited £28m with Lloyds. This is comprised of £18m to satisfy the conditions of the debt repayment and a further £10m for working capital for the club

    …… How do we interpret this information, rarely for once concerning this matter a journalist has provided us with some apparent specifics of the deal – is it accurate? do we believe it? what do we make of it?

  45. Mark Dickson says:

    Some more from the Herald and the truth of the tax-case finally gets a mention!………………….

    Rangers are trying to flog season tickets to an uncertain fanbase, they have a new and inexperienced manager taking over, massive transfer work to do to rebuild their squad, and a Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs case against them which could torpedo their finances before the year is out.

    Whyte could have all the money in the world, but he can’t take all that on without a support structure. When he eventually takes over he needs to build a team behind the team.

    …………………..Strange time for them to start discussing that now don’t you think?

  46. Boab says:

    MIH hasn’t owned 93% for ages. They used to own 92%, but 7% of that went to Metlika in the swap for MSL shares. So MIH (Murray) own 85% and Metlika (King) own 7%. That’s my understanding.

    Basically, if that is right, Murray will get nothing for his shares (my 3p must have been generous) and Rangers will owe Whyte (or a Whyte vehicle) £28m. They just increased the debt to rebuild the squad.

  47. Frank Galvin says:

    I’d wager that resurrection of Rangers (via Rangers 2011 Ltd) would be made easier by league reconstruction – i.e. a two tier setup allowing new Rangers the easiest possible route back to the top tier. One promotion rather than four.

  48. Johnthefishfarmer says:

    The only thing I want to know is ‘who is Craig Whyte’

    A billionaire? A multi-millionaire? A millionaire?

    I’ve googled high and low, not a mention other than the drivel fed to the red-tops??!!??

    He’s not in The Times rich list, where does he live? Where does he pay tax? Does he even like football? Does he even support Rangers? What’s his track record with business? Where does he work? What does he own? What’s his bank balance?

    Surely these are the big questions that journalists should be asking, and answering?!?

    When McCann took over at Celtic we knew little to nothing about him until a few days before when he stepped off a plane in his flat cap. That was pre-Internet days. Even photographs of Whyte seem to be the same three or four photos re-printed?!?

    Surely if you were a Rangers fan you’d be concerned about someone you know NOTHING about taking over your club?

  49. Justinian says:

    Extract from the GUARDIAN Wed 27th April 2011

    “Meanwhile, Football Licensing Authority committee member Damian Collins, MP for Folkestone and Hythe, said the fact neither the FA nor the Football League knew who owned Leeds was a ‘fairly shambolic state of affairs’. The FA has sent a clarification to the committee admitting it does not know the identities of the people behind the three offshore trusts that own the Championship club.”

    Could we see similar confusion wrt RFC?
    Nothing would surprise me anymore as this saga trundles on in a haze opf inuendo, disinformation and doublespeak from the main protagonists and their apologists.

  50. Dharma Bam says:

    Is it possible Craig Whyte is a front for some Speculative Society members that DO have money to fling around?

    Or am I just being paranoid?

%d bloggers like this: