Cost of the UEFA problem

How hard will UEFA hit Rangers over the sectarianism issue at European games?

That is correct.  I do not know.  You do not know.  Martin Bain does not know.  Craig Whyte does not know.  David Murray does not know.  Even Chick Young does not know.  The members of the UEFA disciplinary committee probably do not know right now either.

Rangers were quick off the mark to try to set expectations by telling Chick Young that they expect a £100k fine and the rather novel punishment of Rangers’ fans not being given tickets for two away European fixtures.  We have come to expect no less from such a finely tuned PR machine.  (Rangers fans will dispute this assessment of their PR operation, but the club has faced up to the task of defending itself against the damage done by the KKK-style element in their support rather well).

What is puzzling about this is that we are lead to believe that a sale of Rangers could have happened this afternoon and will now likely be concluded tomorrow (if you believe the press).  If no one knows how bad things could be with UEFA, how can you place a value on a business that you plan to operate for the next few years?  The UEFA penalty could be anything from another slap on the wrist to a two-year ban from playing in all UEFA competitions.

The key point being that no one knows.  Students of this blog will already know that the value of any business is the “present value of all future free cash-flows”.  How can Craig Whyte judge the value of Rangers FC (and hence how much he should pay) if he does not know whether Rangers will be playing in European competition at all next season?  If Rangers are playing in Europe, will part or all of the stadium be closed to paying supporters?  Given that the club owes its survival at this point to the money generated in the UEFA Champions’ League from the last two years, how can Craig Whyte know how much to pay if he cannot even make a working assumptions about playing in the Europa League as a worst case scenario?

Which brings us back to a recurring theme in this blog: takeover or fakeover?  I am assured by some friends in the world of journalism and PR that Whyte really is serious and has a sizeable amount of financing already secured.  (No one has said that he has everything he needs at this time).  That these takeover stories appear with precision timing just ahead of potentially bad news for Rangers does feed the sceptical fire.

Perhaps Whyte is just waiting until UEFA announce their penalty and he will finalise his offer accordingly.  Or maybe it does not matter much to him one way or the other as he does not plan on running a football club?  The last two blog entries on here have expanded on the idea that the only way to really profit from owning Rangers is through a partial or full liquidation.  You protect your investment by converting it to debt (which will take priority in administration over HMRC) and would sell as many players as possible this summer and pocket the cash raised to reduce your exposure.  Then you either sell after a good result in the tax case (pocketing a respectable profit) or liquidate on a hefty loss to HMRC (making a smaller but still decent return).  In this scenario, the liquidation of current playing assets would cover all or most of your investment and your analysis might not be too badly affected by the cash needs for Rangers FC in 12 months’ time- for that would be a problem for some well-heeled real fan.

All speculation of course, but informed by experience and education that says that the idea of someone planning on making a legally binding committment to spend £52m over the next 5 years to own Rangers FC is just balderdash.  Applying a reasonable cost of capital of 10% to this investment, Whyte (or any future owner) would need to be able to extract over £5m per year every year to make these numbers make sense.  It is clear that Rangers’ owners (current and prospective) and the board of directors continue to lie to Rangers supporters about the takeover.  With the willing participation of the Scottish sports media, Rangers fans are being deceived yet again.

If a deal does go through, it will not be on the terms which have been “leaked” to the media.  Contrary to PR-placement stories, there is nothing stopping Craig Whyte from speaking publicly about his plans for Rangers.  The oft cited ‘stock-market rules’ require only that all shareholders hear what you have to say at the same time and that you tell them the truth.  So why does Whyte actually break these same much vaunted rules on a daily basis by leaking through his PR-lackies to the media?  Giving information to all shareholders at the same time is trivially easy in the Internet age.  So we are left with just one other restriction: the truth.  What is it that is being reported in the Scottish media that Craig Whyte is unwilling to say on-the-record?

I do not know whether Craig Whyte will buy Rangers or not, but I do know that Rangers fans are being misled.  Nothing about what has been proposed in the media makes financial sense.   So we are left to seek rational explanations elsewhere.

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

246 Responses to Cost of the UEFA problem

  1. Ray Charles says:

    RTC, I got the impression at the beginning that you thought the Whyte bid was a fakeover.

    Then you began to admit that it was perhaps genuine and started working out scenarios that could make the deal work.

    Now you seem to be edging back towards it being a fakeover.

    Am I correct in my observations and, if so, why has your stance on the issue evolved as it has?

  2. That is a pretty good observation.

    The only thing I am certain of is that Rangers FC and its nominal owner, David Murray- and Craig Whyte, are misleading Rangers fans.

    In the face of previous “done deals” I always fell back upon the financial fundamentals: it did not make sense. I could not see any way for this deal to make sense to anyone.

    Then the idea of the liquidation play occured to me. With a few assumptions about how little you might have to pay (say £18-20m?), and how much might be raised by having a player firesale this summer (say £14-18m?), you could squeeze a strategy that might work. With a financial hypothesis that might work, we then have a rational basis to even think about whether this is all real. In addition, a couple of journalists and PR people to whom I have talked are convinced that Whyte is serious, poor and needing funds, but serious.

    I think my current position is that I do not know or care if Whyte is real or not: it does not affect the final outcome of this situation at all. It is all about the tax case. If Rangers win the tax case, they will survive and possibly thrive. They will probably find a buyer (but not anyone that will lavish cash on new players).
    If they lose the tax case, well, we have covered that in some detail already.

    The timing of recent events does have all of the hallmarks of a carefully calibrated plan to keep as many Rangers fans on the the hook as possible. So while still having a possibility now that something real might be happening, there is still a lot pointing towards fakeover. Either way, it does not matter.

    In short, Rangers fans are being sold a lie that salvation is at hand; of that I am certain.

  3. Ciarans Dad says:

    I just wonder about the whole issue surrounding Murray. Last year I believe that LBG did a debt for equity swap that changed £135m of debt for equity that gave MIH a margin of only £35m in the black, which when you owe around a billion, that amount of safety does not seem a lot.
    You also have to consider that the figures quoted at the time were based on Murray’s own in house valuations and Paul67 showed what an imagination his surveyors had, in an excellent article he did on this last year.
    Now assuming that commercial property values have not increased by much if any in the last year, if you then take the asset value of Ipox, MP (minimal as i believe this is leased) etc out of the equity of MIH, unless the mint has had a serious turn around in fortunes, this surely puts MIH in a precarious position
    or at worst makes them technically insolvent.
    So if we assume (I know, lot of assumptions) that total tangible asset value of rangers on the books is circa £120m with a looming tax bill of say £55m, if they were to ‘swallow swallow’ this into the pot it would be less off a write off than selling the family silver for what is basically the bank debt!!!
    This would then lead to a conclusion that LBG have or are revaluing a lot of minty’s monopoly board, that they dont have faith in winning against HMRC and that thing are even worse than we can guess that they all want out at any cost.
    You also have to wonder what the effect on loss of cashflow and associated contracts held by MIH contracts at snake mountain will have on the overall picture and taking all into account i think that the imminently imminent sale will rumble on for a good while yet. At least until the marauding hordes pay there SB money (if any are that daft)

  4. tomtom says:

    Can you explain how the tangible asset value of Rangers can be assessed at £120m. The stadium is worthless other than as a sporting arena and including that as a valuable asset worth 10’s of millions is misleading.

    Lloyds will also re-evaluate the value of MIH’s assets on a regular basis to substantiate their loan guarantees. As I recall the last time these figures were made public MIH had an asset base of around £425m with borrowings of £700m. They have sold a considerable amount of these assets since then. Lloyds only hope getting their money back was to keep MIH afloat and hope that the economy picks up.

  5. Ciarans Dad says:

    These are figures that appear on rangers own accounts and have been questioned by all in the Celtic family.
    The main point i was trying to make is that there is so many variables, sub-plots and mis-directions that none of this makes any sense. Because rankers is so intertwined within the nefarious dealings of MIH we are not looking at a normal football club sale.
    Then throw in the alleged tax bill thats looming, the precarious condition of one of britains finest monuments and the toxic waste support that folly folly them and your head just about explodes trying to make any logical explanation as to why the ‘Whyte Knight’ is even trying to buy the dump.
    This has minty’s mark all over it when you consider the money he has gotten out of the likes of Joe Lewis and Dave King. The moonbeans promised and not delivered, his dealings with the bank, and all the while a complicet and docile meeja lap it up and spew forth his ramblings without question.
    Even the loyal subjects appear to sit in awe of the great man, no baying for his blood, no car park demo’sand remember, well actually i cant, he has not said a word this year and this, the actions of a man who own’s Scotlands second largest institution.
    Thank god for this blog, the insightful thoughts of RTC and his patience in trying to explain the basics of how this could all pan out to accountancy illiterates like myself, the time he spends answering questions is truly appreciated. Other blogs, CQN, Phil McG etc just make you thankful that we live in the age of the interweb thingy as otherwise the 4th estate would have us believe we were witnessing the second coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Boab says:

    There is no “alleged” tax assessment, that is real there is nothing alleged about it.

    There are two outstanding questions (at this tribunal).

    1, Is the basis of the tax due sound, is there tax due.

    2, If 1 is correct, then how much should the tax be.

    Subject to the above, and assuming that it is found that there is tax due. Then another tribunal will rule on the level of penalty to be paid. That’s probably a moot point though, as Rangers would be unlikely to be able to pay the tax and interest anyway, Alistair Johnstone has “nodded” as much.

  7. tomtom says:

    That’s the point I’m trying to establish CD.

    You can put whatever you want into to your accounts to massage the figures and as long as you can find an accountancy firm that will sign them off then nobody really cares. It’s when you use these “assets” to secure loans and/or overdrafts that you have the problem. We can assume what we want on the basis of the figures the RFC publish but the bank will get their own valuations and work off them when getting a security. Now it may be that the bank has been rather generous with their valuations in the past when it was the Bank of Scotland but as soon as Lloyds took over maybe they had a different perspective on the whole thing. I don’t think for a minute that they believe in the valuation that has been bandied about – perhaps that’s why they are so desperate to get rid of this particular albatross – although they will still have the other £650m to try and get back from MIH. In a nutshell I think Lloyds would have found about Minty’s valuations as soon as they took over B of S and would have stared to apply pressure from day one. However they probably won’t want to be seen in public as coming down too hard on MIH and their associated entities but behind the scenes they will be screwing them to the ground. It’s only when you have the likes of Sir Walter and Alastair Johnson blabbing to the press that you get to hear of it but I’m sure that it is a lot worse than even they make out.

    I still think that Whyte is the “acceptable face” of Ellis. If anyone is hovering in the background masquerading as the Grim Reaper then it will be him. Has the question ever been publicly asked regarding how they got together. Did they bump into each other at a function and decide to go for Rangers or did Ellis tempt Whyte with a “cunning plan”. There’s more to this particular little association than meets the eye but Ellis is so far off the press radar he arely gets a mention. What is getting in return for his 25%?

  8. Everyone talks about the debt for equity swap, but the media missed the big story (yet again!)

    The story of real significance was Lloyds taking 165m in convertible preference shares in MIH. This means that at any moment of their choosing, Lloyds can reduce Murray to a 7% shareholding in the company he founded. In the meantime, they get to skim every penny of free cashflow for themselves through the preferred dividend.

    Murray is little more than an employee at MIH now. That is why he and his son are spending much more time on other ventures, such as the wine companies.

    Lloyds have to deal with the issue of Rangers’ assets eventually, but I think they understand the issue well. It is not a cashflow issue, so as long as RFC do not require additional external cash, they will not care much. The revelation that they went to external funding to get the money for Jelavic was interesting. It will not have done anything to improve relations between RFC and Lloyds.

  9. Andy fitzpatrick says:

    I love the picture with “step up and pay mr whyte”. And with auctions at the top right hand side

  10. Ciarans Dad says:

    Sorry the ‘alleged’ part of my rant was trying to convey what the followers of the ‘mint’ are trying to portray.
    I have no doubt that the day of reckoning is fast approaching and cant wait to see what the final outcome will be.

  11. Seamus says:

    If they go into Administration, as they restructure to try and get out of it, would they then regain their merchandise rights? Or would they only regain that after the contact ended / go to the wall and come back as a ‘new’ club?

  12. Odear says:

    Good point Seamus. RTC- as Rangers sold the jerseys literally in terms of merchandising I assume that another advantage of doing a phoenix under a slightly different name would be they could flog and profit from their own merchandise again?

  13. Andy fitzpatrick says:

    Rangers united of glasgow third division champs 2011/12. Clinched the title on the last day with a last minute penalty over Cowdenbeath.
    Aaaaaaah one can dream

  14. Jonathan says:

    A wee bit of topic, I know but I have to share this with some of you……

    In deepest darkest Hunland which is Larkhall, I was trying to have civilised conversation with some of them on the Royal Wedding. The gist of the conversation is about proudness of “Britishness” and most of the same twisted rhetoric the huns spew, when one of them came away with this cracker – “This is nothing to do with Rangers, this is about pride in your country” and to which I replied – “Of course, this has nothing to do with Rangers they haven’t paid their taxes”. No sooner had it left my lips, they’re reply was Craig Whyte will settle the bill or the bill is nothing to do with RFC, it’s MIH’s problem.

    Oh, aren’t they in for a shock!!

  15. curious observer says:

    Like many others, I’ve long wondered why Ellis is involved in this. Can someone refresh my memory from Ellis’ original bid, what his angle was? Was he in it for property development? I guess one option is that Whyte needs someone with experience running a football club. Whyte has admitted that he doesn’t have a clue about that. Is that where Ellis comes in? Or is Ellis involved because there is a property angle that has so far eluded everyone? If there is the possibility of flogging off say Murray Park and getting housing or something up (despite zoning concerns), then would that not be a potential cash cow that would make Rangers attractive no matter how things played out–stay alive or administration or liquidation?

  16. tomtom says:

    But according to Alastair Johnson, “Whyte had always been unequivocal about one thing during their talks: he wouldn’t be able to run Rangers without help.”

    “My discussions were only with Craig,” said Johnston back then. “When you speak about ‘his people’ I think he is a one-man operation. I think he has people around him who do a lot of his analytical work but he is definitely the decision-maker. He said: ‘I’m going to need a lot of help’. He said: ‘I don’t have the skills to run a football club, I don’t know what I’m doing . . .’.”

    Quote “I don’t have the skills to run a football club, I don’t know what I’m doing” And this is the man that Murray thinks is the right man to take Rangers forward! Surely that is statement that lets the cat out of the bag. It reminds me of the US election when Ross Perot’s running mate (I think his name was Admiral Stockdale) was asked during a television debate why he was running for VP “I don’t really know, I was asked” You knew then the guy wasn’t serious.

    How you can be in something on your own when someone else is putting up 25% is beyond me. Ellis will be heavily involved in RFC if this thing goes ahead and it wouldn’t surprise me if after a short period Whyte sells his shares to Ellis who by that time will have his own set of cronies (after all someone will need to feed the journo’s) to do his dirty, sorry PR, work. Whyte leaves with a tidy profit and his head held high, Ellis gets RFC for whatever purpose he has set his sights on.

    Maybe he’s a secret agent for the Vatican!

    The Rangers fans should beware. Ellis will do more damage to their club than HMRC. Only my opinion of course.

  17. tomtom says:

    A few snippets from an article in the Glasgow Herald of Mar 9 last year:


    Many of those who have had dealings with Ellis at the two football clubs he has been involved with in the past believe he is merely the public face for a consortium of wealthy businessmen

    As one former associate said: “Unless his numbers came up in the EuroMillions draw last week, Andrew Ellis doesn’t have the sort of money needed to take over Rangers himself.”

    He said: “I would imagine the strength of any Ellis bid for Rangers will depend on the strength of the consortium behind him.”

    “He was a disaster and didn’t last very long at all before he parted company with the club,” says local fanzine editor Mark Kennedy, who recalls a larger-than-life character and talk of a move to Milton Keynes

    “There was the potential for our Sixfields Stadium to be developed at that time and for a shopping facility to be built on the land around it. That is a situation which is still ongoing with the council here now all these years later. I think when Ellis realised nothing was going to happen there, he left. I don’t think he had much, if any, equity in the club. I believe he just fronted the consortium which took over the club.

    End of quotes:

    12 months ago he pulls out of buying Rangers as there were concerns over planning permissions for the ground around Ibrox. 6 months later and after the tax issue was promulgated in the press he re-emerges. FFS if the planning issue was a sticking point then surely the tax issue would bury his ambitions now but hell no, he is still wanting to be involved.

    If this scenario was taking place at the other end of the city the press would have this guy hung, drawn and quartered but not a peep from our well fed scribes in the press.

    Another point, why did Whyte even have to mention that Ellis was involved, he could have said that he had “other investors” without naming them. Ellis himself was content to be the front man for a group of London businessmen 12 months ago so why does he feel the need to be identified at this stage.

    I don’t know, maybe they just like’s getting their names in the press in order to raise their profile, but this has all the hallmarks of another Michael Knighton. They would like to get their hands on the club but don’t have the money so pretend they’re serious players. You couldn’t buy the publicity they have had for the amount they have probably spent on “due diligence”. Who’s to say that those carrying out the “due diligence” are not part of the sham and are doing the work for free or at the least very little in the hope that something else falls their way at a later date.

    A piece on Ellis would be interesting RTC if you can manage it.

  18. The mere mention of Ellis is another factor that points towards this being a fakeover. Ellis brings nothing to the table, but perhaps needs some reflected light as part of the price of keeping him quiet.
    If Whyte really needs Ellis’ expertise: a) It speaks badly of Whyte and b) It shows that Whyte does not have the cash to play Ellis in the same way you would do with other consultants.

  19. Weefatbhoy says:

    C O,

    The ONLY property development option for any interested party is the ground next to Ibrox (Car park) this already has planning permission for non commercial (Houses/Flats) units………

    There is more chance of El Papa doing the half time lotto draw at Ibrox next week than ANYONE being given commercial planning permission in said area – at any (Asda !!!!) price…………

    Murray Park and the surrounding acres (Which Rangers FC / Murray do own) is also a no no for CPP as it’s all on *green* belt land…………

  20. The Albion ground is not owned by Rangers FC. I have heard that there are issues related to this: that the club deck planning permission was based upon extra car park space being made available.
    Ibrox could be redeveloped. It is not the Colloseum or an Egyptian Pyramid. It is an early 20th century redbrick building (and reminds me of the old Oatbank hospital for you oldies). A legal process for altering category B listed buildings does exist. It would just take time.

    I have heard all the other debates about Murray Park and green belt etc. To be honest I have no idea of what is possible there, but rezoning does take place. In fact, a sizeable part of the job of being a property developer is to be skilled on opening up tracts of land which are normally considered closed.

    Having said that, I don’t know that anyone is seriously studying any of these options. This could all be a huge charade.

  21. Weefatbhoy says:

    CPP won’t happen – due to populus and demand – not because of who own’s it, Also we are talking about GBL in Milngavie here RTC, There is NO chance…………

  22. Weefatbhoy says:

    Re :- Populous……………..Damned Millers

  23. Boab says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it just the front which has listed status. Plenty of places have been developed leaving the listed part in place. It may be that whole stand though, I’m not really sure.

  24. That would be one way. My point was simply that if some farsighted genius had long range plans to develop the whole area, combining Ibrox and Hinshelwood would be possible.
    No one would get permission to develop Ibrox for a few years until the emotional heat came out of the argument. Once people accepted that Rangers were gone and that whatever club had picked up their “traditional” mantle had decided to play elsewhere (renting Hampden for example) then planners would eventually see that the historical value of the facade does not mean much if the club no longer exists.
    There are other emotional barriers to overcome. The Copland Road stand being the scene of the Ibrox Disaster would create an especially emotional constituency that might seek to block development plans.

    In reading previous posts, I think that I might have created the impression that I was claiming that there was definitely a liquidation strategy that was a no-brainer profit maker. What I am saying is that if it is not the liquidation strategy, then we are left with fakeover unless someone can present a sensible business case for someone borrowing a lot of money and blowing it on a football club.

  25. Weefatbhoy says:

    Totally agree rtc

  26. Weefatbhoy says:

    Yeah Boab,

    It is the front only – But I was getting at the surrounding area m8 not the stadia, There has been enquiries in the past by DM & Co as to the possability of a Casino etc (Ha Ha!)

    However there was a (Real) possible plan for a supermarket construction in the area (DM had agreed a price on the land) but it was vetoed early on, The only way would be if Ibrox through time became a derelict eyesore (Half way there already lol)………………

  27. tilldeathusdopart says:

    This is a fabulous blog. Well done RTC, I’ve really enjoyed reading the articles surrounding what appears to be the imminent demise of Rangers FC.

    I have no financial/accounting background but I find it misleading, to say the least, that someone was allowed to value Ibrox at £100-£120 million. Surely the person responsible for this will be held to account when the seemingly inevitable carving up of the assets ensues?

    Am i wrong to think this?

  28. Boab says:

    That would be DM Hall Chartered Surveyors.

    Roy Hudghton, who carried out the valuation, stressed: ”An asset valuation based on depreciated replacement cost should not be confused with the price you would get for selling something. A lot of companies have seen their asset values rise over the last few years due to rising estimates of how much it would cost to replace them.”

  29. Even then, I cannot see how accounting standards for the use of depreciated replacement cost could have been applied. It is supposed to take account of technology improvements and innovations to give a cost of replicating the function of the assets at a given time. It does not simply give you a price for making a carbon copy of your existing buiding using the construction methods originally used.

    With Celtic Park and Murrayfield having been built after Ibrox and both having larging capacities (which should imply greater value), on what planet are Rangers assers worth £121m?
    To prove wrong doing we would need evidence that DM Hall were instructed and paid extra to provide a valuation that suited Murray and HBOS. That will be almost impossible to uncover. (Unless of course any of our readers know differently! Email:

  30. tomtom says:

    I am reading this correctly? The value of an asset should not be confused with the price you would get for selling it.

    So RFC work on the basis that a room and kitchen in Dalmarnock which is available for sale at £30k is really worth £150k as it would cost that much to replace. This beggars belief. With blue sky thinking like this no wonder the bank’s got into such a mess.

  31. Boab says:

    I believe Celtic Park and Murrayfield are both valued at somewhere between £40m and £50m, which seems like a very much more reasonable figure today. £120m in 2003 just seems ludicrous.

  32. So long farewell auf weidersen goodbye says:

    many congratulations on the site RTC. excellent and compelling reading.
    same to all the other contributors who provide real insight and knowledge to a complex subject.

    up front i’ll tell you i know nothing of the ins and outs of the financial markets so just a couple of questions on this matter,
    1. reading some of the posts throughout the blog, it is mentioned that sale of their squad might fetch £18m-£20m. isn’t this an overestimation given that when/if administration hits it’ll be a buyers market of fire sale proportions? if someone offered £2m for McGregor surely the hand would be bitten off?

    2. and if liquidation was the outcome(please God please) wouldn’t the registrations of the players belong to the SFA?

    keep up the good work everyone

  33. Boab says:

    I think I mentioned that ALL of the assets would be worth more than £18m. That would include Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park, all of the players registrations, cash in bank, shares and other investments, cars, office equipment etc.

    I still think that’s true. I cannot believe that everything Rangers owns comes to less than £18m, remember I’m not talking net value here, just what the total of all assets is worth.

  34. As my other post, asset valuations will always be debateable and I would not claim sufficient knowledge of either the player or property markets to defend a particular narrow valuation range.
    You raise a good point as to why it would be a liquidation strategy. Apparently you can own Rangers simply by paying off Lloyds. That would be about £18m just now. If this is true, the liquidation strategy has a chance of working because you can engineer your own place in the liquidation hierarchy. You make sure you are in a category of your own at the front of he queue and you do not have to worry about other creditors. The £4m owed for Jelavic, non-statutory employee payments, The Rangers Bond holders, trade suppliers (plumbers?), none of these would receive a penny if this was designed correctly.
    What you cannot do is buy Rangers for £18m, get hit with the tax bill and keep the club alive without ultimately paying over £90m.

  35. tomtom says:

    I’m not being a smug tim here when I say that I honestly think that you would struggle to raise even that amount. I think we can all agree that Ibrox is worth nothing in its present condition – even as a sporting arena it would cost millions to bring it up to an acceptable standard – and the cost of demolition would be enormous. There are very few players that would fetch money. The administrator would be glad to most of them off the payroll quickly especially the high earners like Bougherra, McGregor, Papac and Lafferty. Who else is worth much in a fire sale? I don’t think that they will have much cash in the bank right now. They only had £5.2m at the end of December and they still have to pay salaries etc for the next six months with very little additional revenue to come in. The cars are all provided free of charge by Audi on a sponsorship deal so no revenue there. Throw in the administrators costs and you’d be lucky to clear Lloyds let alone pay anybody else. Maybe that’s why Lloyds are so desperate to get out so quickly as they know their outstanding debt is not covered by their “secured assets”. In the event of adminstration/liquidation you will be lucky to get anywhere between 10 to 15% of the supposed value.

  36. I would not push a valuation of players too hard. The football market (and the property market) are volatile. A player worth £15m in the EPL 2 years ago, might struggle to raise £5-7m today.

    In case anyone gets the wrong idea, I am not pushing the idea of liquidating Rangers as a sure-fire winner, but rather it is the only idea that is worth discussing as a commercial proposition. If Whyte is not looking at the liquidation strategy I have outlined, then I do not see any other strategy that would make sense. Others have proposed other variations that would amount to the same thing. However, the idea that any sane, rational human being would buy Rangers and spend a total of £52m over a few years to so is bonkers. There is not even the slightest possibility of getting your money back. There is no presentation you could make to any investor that could show getting your money back let alone a profit. If those who know more than I do about player valuation and the property market around Ibrox cannot make the liquidation hypothesis make sense, then we are left with only one conclusion: fakeover.
    I would love for someone who believes in Whyte and who can speak finance to outline the business case for the story reported in the media about Whyte’s investment plans. Just show me (and everyone else on here) what we have missed.

  37. dirtymac says:

    Whilst it’s a buyers market, it’s a market nonetheless. One might point out that, as far as English clubs (most likely buyers) are concerned, Scotland has been a buyers market for many years.

    I had this discussion with a colleague a few weeks back who seemed to be of the opinion that McGregor et al would be had for a pittance. I’m of the opinion that a liquidator/administrator will (by legal obligation) go for the highest bid and will indeed play bidders off against each other as much as is likely under whatever circumstance the orc find themselves in.

    At the end of the day, if McGregor (the only player with real sell on value) goes onto the market, there will, or at least should/would be several potential buyers vying with each other to obtain the services of a keeper (much as it pains to say it) with talent far in excess of that found in any English keeper of today.

    In that scenario, a buying chairman/manager/scout/football director would be negligent in their duties if they do not pursue such a transfer with as much vigour as they would with any other contracted player.

    The only difference would be that the player is very much actively advertised as being up for sale, although I remain unconvinced that in the privateness of boardrooms across England they are not already being paraded as such a commodity. After that, it becomes competitive amongst buyers with each trying to capture the services of a very useful keeper. The knockdown would not be laughably huge (unfortunately).

    This logic can be used with other players to a certain extent, although I do remain staunchly convinced that there are few uruks that would actually command much more than a 6-figure transfer fee with or without a tax case or administration.

  38. andycol says:

    As far as the tangible assets are concerned it is worth considering a comparison with Spurs. They have a stadium in North London (soon to be vacated when they move to the Olympic ground) and have currently two training grounds. One is in Chigwell, Essex and the new one is being developed near Enfield. Looking at the success of the Highbury development I would guess the redevelopment potential is huge. All of this valued on their last Annual Report at around £123m. Not too far off the RFC figure but I think the circumstances bear no comparison other than to point out the fanciful valuation unique to RFC in a different way.

  39. ramsay smith says:

    I’m sure the Highbury development influenced the balance sheet valuation. Similar stadiums, same architect. Problem is one of them is in Govan.

  40. The Lizard King says:

    “The revelation that they went to external funding to get the money for Jelavic was interesting. It will not have done anything to improve relations between RFC and Lloyds.”

    RTC – can you please point me at the source for that info please? Missed that one!

  41. At what point does “dawn” happen with the rangers support? before or after they buy their season tickets?

    I don’t believe all rangers are stupid, so I do not understand why dawn has not happened with many of them. Are they that blind? Have they been that brainwashed?

    I wonder if [a bag o’ chips & a Tennents] Super Ally is trying to warn them … again. His “we are in deep deep trouble” or karma as I see it does bring a tear (of joy & laughter) to my eye.

    But still Whyte is on the verge of “saving” rangers … but ultimately, the question is from what? Administration, Liquidation? Being hit with a frying pan to make sure they land in a [carefully designed] fire?

    The longer no deal, the more cost cutting will happen. Lloyds must know rangers are f@cked, and there is no way out from the deadend that is the hmrc – except Whyte. They do have previous with Whyte, so they will know what he brings to the table to help the table itself dissappear.

    Everything in & nothing out can be their only strategy, especially when they are having to work with Sense & Sensibility (i.e. whyte & murray) and their approach to save themselves.

    Which brings me back to my original quesiton … At what point does “dawn” happen with the rangers support? Murray has being doing this for years? Why no backlash against such an incompetence chairman?

    At the minute, everytime I hear anything about rangers, whyte and murray, I think of the tail of the Emperor’s New Clothes. It really is a case of “move along, nothing to see here”

    Although, “roll up, roll up, hit three coconuts & rangers could be yours” would be much more entertaining ….

  42. manila says:

    At what point does “dawn” happen with the rangers support?

    I’ll have a stab at this, with advanced apologies for the use of any generalisations. I don’t think the “dawn” will happen, not in any meaningful or collective way. Throughout my travels across the electronic hunderworld I have yet to encounter more than a few solitary voices seriously questioning Mr. Whyte’s motives, finances or suitability. Any genuine concerns are either quickly washed away by the tsunami of anti-Murray bile or drowned out in regurgitated Red Top propoganda. Absurd.

    Any “Call to Arms” is only ever after the event. Then we get to witness the full blow hun rhetoric delivered in the time honoured Churchillian brogue, invoking empire, days gone by and traditions. It never fails. Central to any of these uprisings is not the resolve to address the root cause of the issue, but a determination to find fault in their prosecutors. They’ve being doing it their way for so long that any criticisms are viewed as insanity. We therefore get, Heavy handed Spanish Police / 95% of UEFA are Catholic / The head of FARE is married to a Taig / Lennon brings it on himself / The bombs were sent by Tarriers / The Mhedia. No-one likes them, but contrary to what they would have you believe, they do care. And another bluemail campaign is launched.

    One group, historically the most vocal, that you would have expected to be raising concerns or at least questions on behalf of the wider Rangers support, has been conspicuously absent in recent weeks. Is the RST adopting the famed Dignified Silence but working furiously behind the scenes on their fellow fans behalf ? Or, are they not rocking the rowing boat in the hope that if the takeover comes to pass they can then return grovellingly to the new masters table in the hope of more crumbs. They are doing their members a gross diservice as they idly hope and pray for the New Dawn, any New Dawn. Where’s Edgar David when you need him?

    If and when The Rangers are obliterated by the L-Bomb, it might coalesce the support around the club, a new way might be formed, the traditional baggae might be dropped … it might, but i doubt it. In summary I see no prospect of the “dawn” occurring.

    Oh, and finally. I have this recurring nightmare that they are wiped out and forced to reform in the lower reaches of Scottish football as Turd Lanark and then go on to win consecutive promotions back to the SPL … and then the triumphalism returns. Say it aint so.

  43. TootingTim says:

    @andycol re Spurs stadium plans. You mean West Ham. To the Olympic park after the games.

    @Ramsay Smith re Highbury. Leitch designed the first Highbury stadium, which was replaced by the Deco splendour that has been converted into ‘yuppie flats’. It was a bit of a haybarn from the look of the photos. Sorry for my pedantry, you make a valid point they must have been influenced by the AFC plans.

    Brilliant blog RTC and others. You would seem to be throwing light on an extraordinary dereliction of duty by an entire country’s media professionals. This season in the SPL has long since entered into uncharted chicanery territory. There will be a film about this season one day.

    The keyboard is mightier than the banner headline.

  44. jusodae says:

    As a virtual financial illiterate can I say that this is a compelling blog. A genuine thank you to RTC and all your contributors. In this era making finance interesting to people like me is fundamentally empowering. Thank you again.

    My main point though is a bit off topic

    The rhetoric emanating from Rangers whether in relation to their debt, the tax case or UEFA, has a common theme of “dark forces” i.e. Celtic fans conspiring against them. This makes me think that Murray et al know fine that they are fucked so they are deflecting any backlash towards Celtic.

    If this is the case then it is appallingly cynical and will only feed sectarianism.

  45. There is a little sub-plot behind all of this involving Mr. Bain personally.
    His rhetoric is about building his defence of himself for when the walls come tumbling down. He has much to fear.

    So, by embracing Rangers’ fans and painting himself as their protector from the vast timmy conspiracy, he will try to paint himself as a victim of that same conspiracy. To the extent that variety of individuals are exposing embarrassing facts about their club, Rangers fans should be most concerned by the fact that it is true. I can speak to the tax case, and state with certainty, that Rangers executives were fully aware that what they were doing was illegal, but went ahead with it for years anyway.

    I am not fabricating anything on here. It is very clear when I am speculating on what might happen next and what I know to be a fact about what has already happened. Bain has good reason to want to lay down smoke to cover his withdrawal.

  46. PAULMAC says:

    In certain newspapers today we had a suggestion that Mr. Bain was CONSIDERING an appeal against the UEFA punishment…

    This gives the impression that rangers where unfairly dealt with and that he is fighting the good fight against those (no pointing fingers) who have an anti rangers agenda!

    Compare this to Walter who was relieved because the punishment wasn’t as bad as he thought it could have been? Or Ally stating we are in big big trouble!

    Both the above positions appear to be at different ends of the spectrum.

    Mr. Bain I’m sorry to say needs to brush up on his PR skills, it appears evident he is playing to the gallery, and not very well at that!

  47. The whole rangers thing about being conspired against is symptomatic of a fundamental level of corporate incompetence that will (thankfully) undermine their intellectual ability to deal with most complex problems.

    A few examples:

    Firstly, Rangers are not at fault because their fans sing sectarian songs. It is the fault of FARE, an independent “unaccountable” body, who happens to have a CEO married to someone who likes Celtic. And this is why they grassed us up to UEFA

    Seriously? They had time to write their PR response and this is the output.
    Credible no. Embarrassing yes, as it shows them to be rubbish.
    The fact most elements of the Scottish media bought this is not a surprise. I say most as I have found 1 exception – which was a surprise in itself

    Also for a body deemed unaccountable” … they do have surprisingly close links with UEFA & FIFA.
    Again, I do not believe “unaccountable” is strictly true, but such suggestions are in line with behaviours I believe are prevalent in the intellect of inadequate & incompetent Executives.

    But feel free to check out the FARE ‘About Us” page and draw your own conclusions:

    As a treat here is a rarity in Scottish journalism … I’m not a huge fan of Tom English by any means but this article did surprise me … Page 3 verifies the claims of FARE.

    Here he states rangers fans sang sectarian songs during the PSV game. I am “surprised” how this was completely overlooked by every other scottish journalists. Maybe they have the same view of sectarian singing as William Campbell from the Northern Irish Football Association (he was the UEFA rep at the Rangers – PSV game).

    This ‘it wasnae us’ mindset appears to be at the forefront of all matters relating to tax too – which, with hindsight, I now view as a marvel

    Rangers are not at fault for utilising tax avoidance strategies for years.
    It is the fault of the HMRC for noticing this.

    I think the Rangers board would have been brilliant in Scooby Doo ….
    “If it wasn’t for them darn pesky kids”
    … or Anti Racism organisations
    … or Government Tax Authorities
    … etc etc etc

    Come to think of it .. Maybe Scooby Doo should apply for a job on the rangers board.

  48. PAULMAC says:

    I tend to agree, the asset value is at a generous best…£25-£30m based on selling players at at a decent figure.

    However, selling players at anywhere near their highest value would be difficult, under the situation rangers face. It’s a buyers dream negotiating a sale price for a player from a distressed club in rangers position.

    Moving onto other assets within the club, tangible and intangible.

    The club still appear to have the stadium as £112m. Clearly this a questionable value and we would assume a far lower figure would be closer to it’s real value, considering its poor condition etc.

    They also list their other property as leasehold property at £3m. Not knowing the amount of land involved, but its location functionality would have that valuation at the top end also.

    Fixtures and fittings are listed at £3.5m, maybe they have gold and platinum bathroom taps or a Picasso hanging in the boardroom, but I can not imagine F&F amount to £3.5m

    Cash in Bank, unknown at this point, but at the last set of accounts June 2010, it was showing £368k. Given that was June I would expect there to be a working capital higher than this during a season. I guess if you acquire the club immediatly after season book renewal they could be sitting with £15m in the bank. Who knows?

    Intangible assets, listed as £11m, this applies to such things as subsidiary Company’s and brand names etc. they have 5 Company’s listed under Rangers. I doubt very much they are worth any value to anyone else other than Rangers and therefore these values are very subjectiveand their actual value in reality could be very small.

    So on relflection I would think £20m is closer to the asset figure, but as I say the unknown is when the season book money hits, if its in the bank..then it could be double that figure.

    What chance BP finding oil under Ibrox?

    Other factors to consider where do FIFA/UEFA stand on outstanding payments owed to clubs and from clubs?

  49. Torquemada says:

    The £4m owed for Jelavic…? Where has this juicy snippet come from, RTC?

    If the huns still owe money on him, that will have to be repaid first regardless of any restructuring of administration debt priorities – if Rangers want a licence to play football, that is. Uefa rules are explicit that all football debt takes priority, a source of chagrin for all non-football debtors.

    £4m still owed for Jellyfish – that would just be TOO good! lol!

  50. PAULMAC says:

    From the last set of full accounts there was an outstanding amount of £894k in Euros to trade creditors, I guess Jelevic can be added to this, how much has already been paid, who knows?

  51. Guinnessjohn says:

    johnbhoy , if you followed the link you`ll have noticed Watford fans were among the most bemused

    re the Ticketus connection .The thing I don`t get is how LBG tolerated this , if it happened . Think

    Wonga x a lot and that`s what we`re looking at here . You don`t borrow in these markets without

    paying a premium . Did RFC actually sell a % of season book sales , was the transaction secured

    to the potential detriment of LBG ? I aint no accountant , I don`t know .

  52. JohnBhoy says:

    Borrowing against future earnings is what led Plymouth and Watford to their current predicaments, teetering on the brink of liquidation.
    Interestingly, Watford are now run by a holdings company which has absorbed all the football club’s debt.
    Hmmm . . .

  53. Guinnessjohn says:

    If Ticketus have been involved in the Jelavic deal he hasn`t been paid for yet . His previous club will

    have been paid but the modus operandi of Ticketus is to lend against future season book sales , in

    this case the ones RFC are trying to punt at the moment . They appear to be the place where

    football clubs go when all other credit options are closed to them . The link below gives a pretty

    good insight into how the company operates :

  54. Boab says:

    That would explain how they were able to get him then, if this is what they did. They basically would have been borrowing against future season ticket sales. I wouldn’t imagine this is a particularly cheap way to borrow money. Though maybe the only one available if your bank weren’t willing to let you spend more.

  55. Blankety Blank Whyte Cheque Book but where's the pen?'s the pen? says:

    The funding of the Jelavic deal seemed odd at the time considering how skint Walter & Co were when whinging to the media, as lets face it poor Walter has had simply no money to spend for years (maybe Wlter counts £3m+ players as not really spending money?)

    RTC who funded the Jelavic deal if not LTSB?

  56. Regarding funding of the Jelavic deal, see the progression of Rangers’ balance sheet from 2010-Interim, 2009-Interim in the image below:
    Rangers' balance sheet

    The long term debt is relatively unchanged from 30 June 2010 (not on graphic above) and 31 Dec 2010. That makes it very unlikely that Jelavic (reported to have cost £4m) was paid for with long-term debt. As of 30 June 2010, Rangers had a £19m term loan repayable at £1m per year. So the conclusion from the analysis of the balance sheet is that the Jelavic liability (however much it was- and we cannot tell from the balance sheet) was taken on as a shortterm liability. I have read rumours on messageboards that Rangers got the money from a company called Ticketus services 65 Ltd. If so, someone- either Jelavic himself or someone else- will need to be sold to pay them back.

  57. Blindlemonchitlin says:

    Martin Bain has a history of publicly fuming about slurs against his good name.

  58. Much like the money taken from the Rangers Supporters Trust’s credit card machine by Mark DIngwall, I suspect that Bain repaid the agent who “helped” him buy a house in France after questions started to be asked. A truly innocent Martin Bain would have produced evidence of the timeline.

    I wonder why anyone would allow a business contact to buy them a house any way? Even if someone provided help with identifying a nice house in a nice area, you would say “thanks mate” and call a solicitor of your own. Very odd. ;-)

    Some questions were being raised over Mr. Bain’s integrity internally as well. He got quite irrate about it.

  59. JohnBhoy says:

    The Scottish Press in June 2006 publicised Bain’s furious denial of wrongdoing.
    They didn’t publicy the claim by Vitesse Arnhem’s MD Jan Streuer that cash given to him by Stojic after transfers was also a personal loan (generous guy, this Stojic).
    Neither did they cover a report in Le Parisien newspaper in December 2006 that revealed that the 148,115 Euros paid into the Rothschild bank in Monnaco was into an account named Mendricka opened on August 19, 2004, the day before Boumsong’s transfer was completed.
    Le Parisien stated: “The reason for the transfer of funds could not be clearer – ‘Commission for the president of Glasgow in the transfer of Boumsong from Auxerre to Rangers’ reads a document sent by the judicial authoritaries in Monaco. Prosecution investigators were able to obtain this information with the help of Patrice Sam, a specialist in international financial movements.”
    Hmmm . . .

  60. Boumsong? Boumsong? Why does that name seem familiar? It is on the tip of my tongue. For some reason, I think that name is significant.

  61. Lord Wobbly says:

    Manila said “I have this recurring nightmare that they are
    wiped out and forced to reform in the lower reaches of
    Scottish football as Turd Lanark and then go on to win
    consecutive promotions back to the SPL… and then the
    triumphalism returns.”

    In an alternate dream/universe, the club goes out of existance and the support is divided along a ‘fault’ line of sectarianism, the rabid festering curs on one side and decent folks on the other. We are now able to identify the minority. Each faction sets up a rival club: tbe R(abid) F(estering) C(urs) – shirt incorporates a sash and a red hand; and the R(eal) F(riendly) C(harity) – shirt incorporates a dove holding an olive branch in its beak. Will RFC chew up and spit out RFC (the perpetual darkness scenario) or, will RFC mark its territory in the lower leagues until it loses interest as RFC flies up the leagues (the truely new dawn scenario)?

  62. I agree with you. Let’s just assume that the Rangers support is 50% decent guys whose worst flaw is that they tolerate the bigots around them and the other half are their hardcore “traditionalists”.

    The decent half would start supporting local clubs, English or European teams, etc. The ability of a “Glasgow Rangers FC” to attract them back in a few years could be limited. Even the hardcore could splinter between the other central belt clubs with “traditional” leanings: Kilmarnock, Motherwell, Falkirk, Hearts. If the new Rangers club has to battle past these outfits, it is possible that even their most loyal of Rangers fan could be splintered.

    However, we need a result in the tax case before such issues become matters to lose sleep over.

  63. Boab says:

    A result against them at tribunal would cause huge problems, possibly leading to administration etc as we have discussed.

    However failing to win the SPL / qualifying for the Champions League would also cause them big problems. They simply cannot operate at the level they are doing without good European money. They would have no option but to cut even further than they have been doing. Which could conceivably have a snowball effect i.e. making SPL success less likely etc.

  64. Tommy D says:

    I was amazed last night when my brother in law – a rangers fan – quoted chapter and verse what the mainstream media have been feeding about the fakeover! He doesn’t believe that all of the media would lie about such an important subject.

    This is typical of the majority of rangers fans and why t is important that sites like this exist and thrive.

    My belief is that season ticket money is the aim and nothing else.

    I just wonder what the reaction for the majority will be when the establishment club goes belly up! How will the MSM portray their role in this I.e. Not reporting or investigating to the level they should have?

    Only one week to go till the FTT completes and then the Murray PR machine will click into top gear preparing the ground for the end game. Just the way Bain is trying to make himself look good to the masses by painting the picture that he is in some way a hero by the unrealistic statements he is making.

    Remember one thing Murray and Bain……what goes around comes around!!

  65. Ask Darrell King about what happens to Scottish journalists, even ones with impeccable Rangers supporting credentials, when they dare tell the truth.

    He had the tax story details in newsprint first. Either his sources went sour on him (I doubt that) or he was put off by the savaging he received from Rangers fans who just did not want to hear any bad news. Demographics in Scotland dictate that there is a financial penalty to be paid by printing bad news about Rangers. So it is very possible that the whole Scottish media would lie about such an issue:
    1. They lie because that is what the Rangers staff who feed them “exclusives” want them to do
    2. They lie because there are huge financial risks in getting in front of this story; the newspaper could be blamed for causing takeovers to collapse etc
    3. They lie because they do not want to admit the truth to themselves out of tribal loyalty.

  66. Ian Ferguson says:

    If the TICKETUS story is true it would explain a lot!

    If the sad sacks don’t renew their season books then RFC maybes won’t be there to see the tax bill.

    I would fall over laughing if, after spending a FORTUNE to defer a tax bill THEY fell foul to their “strategy” of going for outside funding.

    The last time they tried that MINTY had to cobble up a £50m LOAN to cover the fact that the PEEPEL couldn’t get a crisis loan to buy shares.

  67. Auldheid says:

    I watched the first half of Motherwel v Rangers today and switched off at the second goal. What I noticed right before it were huge swathes of open space in the midfield with no Motherwell players close to the ball.

    When the goal arriived right after I knew it was going to be a rout. The question for me is not so much how well did Rangers play but where exactly did the Motherwell players go?

    If I were a player in a league who thought his job depended on the opposition being around next season to stop further loss of income, I’m not sure I would be making sure the opposition were being closed down and harried as if my job depended on it.

    However if I were playing a team whom I thought might prevent the team I think my future livliehood depends on from being around next season, I would be working my socks off.

    And that is what Celtic are up against, not sectariansim but the future livliehood of those they play against and until such times as Rangers go under or are seen as safe, Celtic will never be playing on a level playing field and the game will continue to be corrupted to keep Rangers afloat.

    Unless something happens to change the situation at Rangers before next season starts it will be more of the same. Everyone says Scottish football is dying and it is. It is dying because it is sick, it is sick because it is corrupt.
    The cause of the corruption is the state of Ranger FC and they simply cannot be allowed a licence to continue playing in the SPL without setting out exactly how they are going to run their business under the following scenarios.

    1. HMRC fail and they get takenover – the best case scenario.
    2. HMRC fail but no takeover.
    3. HMRC win but there is a takeover.
    4. HMRC win and no takeover.

    Under scenario 2 is it to be more of the same with their dependence on CL money so great that it corrupts the SPL? We would be fools to let them keep picking our pockets.

    In the interests of the integrity of our game which is essential for selling it to supporters these questions have to be asked by Celtic on behalf of our support. Football is too interdependent a business by nature to act as if what is going on at Rangers FC is not Celtic’s business.

    Celtic supporters as much as any other football supporter in Scotland including of course the Ranger’s support have a right to know exactly on what basis will Rangers be in business next season.

  68. Mikey says:

    In my nightmares Auldheid i see our board fully aware, whilst playing their part in aiding their plight!

    This gorilla in this room’s been around well before the elephant showed up.

  69. Torquemada says:

    The game in Scotland has been corrupt since 1922, mhate.

    23 (honest titles) and counting.

  70. Auldheid says:

    Aye but untril 2008 it was in the pursuit of triumphalsim, since then it has been meeting the cost of that pursuit.

  71. Ian Ferguson says:

    You and auldheid are both right.
    Celtic have been done dirty with decisions over the years.

    Over the last few years it has gone back to the darkest times.

    RFC critical financial position has dictated the results, SCOTTISH bias has ensured they have survived so far.

  72. AlDosser says:


    Found most of your posts thought out & thought provoking but you’ve abandoned all logic here.

    Motherwell’s best interests are served by celtic winning the title and ‘Well getting into to Europe for a 4th consecutive season on the back of being runners up in the Cup. Of course as a season ticket holder at FP I want to see Claret & Amber ribbons on the trophy come 21st May, but realistically when we come up against teams who can pay 10 times our average first team salary to mere squad players we will always struggle. That is what happened yesterday and, unless celtic have an off day at the end of May, is the likely outcome in the final.

    Seriously which do you think the more likely
    a) A conspiracy by every professional in the game to lie down to rangers in the league run-in
    b) A team with a stronger squad beating an injury depleted side with players having half an eye on a the biggest game of their careers?

  73. Mark Dickson says:

    this is the one thing that really gets my goat about rangers and celtic fans and their arguments and conspiracy about who is gettin the most favour or least favour from match officials or other teams etc. Both teams get more controversial decisions and non-decisions in their favour compared to the rest of the teams they play in the SPL but they close their eyes to that, all that matters is if it’s rangers or celtic that’s perceived as receiving the most favour or bias, the injustices their opponents suffer are never considered. Shocking hypocrisy imo!

  74. gorillainaroom says:

    So what if davie weir got embroidery on his top to celebrate the last wedding he was at?

    29th April Congratulations Adolf & Eva

  75. Ian Ferguson says:


  76. Paulsatim says:

    Found this on CM, thought it was apt and quite funny………

    It will be 24-48 hours after the Royal Wedding, if not it will be when the banks open. Failing that it will be 48 hours after the independent vetting committee agree for the takeover committee to tell Craig Whyte he has till Friday to say where all the money is coming from. Once Friday comes it might be next Tuesday before David Murray and Lloyds instruct the takeover committee to authorise the independent vetting committee to confirm to the source representing Craig Whyte that if he irons out the couple of wee problems then they will ask the two committees to discuss with Alastair Johnstone if it is okay for Craig Whyte to speak to the bank and tell them that he has all the money. There will then be a 24-48 hour delay for Alastair Jonhstone to jet in and confirm with Craig Whyte he has a warchest of £20m to spend before he recommends to the takeover committee that they should ask the independant vetting committee to seek assurances from Craig Whyte that he has spoken to Lloyds and assured them he’s not just kidding on about all this. Once Whyte, and Lioyds and Murray have agreed the sale there will then be a deadline of the middle of next week for both committees to seek assurances they have all spoken to each other…..AND BY THAT TIME ALL THE SEASON TICKET MONEY SHOULD BE IN!

  77. Tommy D says:

    lol the funniest but most accurate account of the fakeover……well done Paul ;-)

  78. andycol says:

    Apparently this in tomorrow’s NOTW

    CRAIG WHYTE will walk away from his Rangers takeover if it doesn’t go through early this week.
    The tycoon is furious at the stalling tactics used by Ibrox board members against his bid.
    And the Motherwell-born investor has issued an ultimatum – either Gers accept his £55million buyout or he will pull the plug.
    An insider close to the tense negotiations said: “Whyte is so angry at the whole thing taking so long that he is going to walk away.
    “He has told parties involved if the deal isn’t done by close of play on Tuesday, it’s finished. Unless he sees real movement from Rangers when the stock market closes, he is pulling out.
    “The wheels better be in motion come Tuesday, or he’s killing the plan. It’s crunch time. He’s in deadline mode now.”The waiting game is over for him. Rangers need to get their fingers out now.”
    A faction inside Ibrox has been opposed to Whyte’s investment in the club from the get-go, our source confirmed. However, Whyte is reluctant to give up on his dream of owning the champions and breathing new life into the club.
    Even boss-in-waiting Ally McCoist, 48, has admitted Gers will be “in big trouble” if the Whyte take-over doesn’t go ahead.
    McCoist, who has only four games left as Walter Smith’s No 2, warned his players’ wages bill is being slashed and he will have no money to spend on strengthening the squad.
    He said: “If things stay the same I will have to cut quite severely.”
    Whyte and his co-bidder, London-based property developer Andrew Ellis, 42, have already set up the company which will take over the club.
    Wavetower Limited was formed in Bristol last September, then switched its address to a firm of solicitors in London a month later when Ellis joined the board.
    Whyte became a director in March along with a long-standing business partner, Philip Betts. With all the aspects of the deal in place, Whyte hopes to wrap up the deal when the London Stock Exchange reopens for business on Tuesday.
    Our source said: “Whyte has lost patience with factions opposed to his investment. This has cost him around £750,000 of his own money to get where we are now.”
    The venture capitalist has had to leave a lot of his other international business interests for the last six months. Our insider added: “More than anything he feels sorry for the fans, who have had to put up with this protracted saga. Craig deeply regrets the situation they find themselves in, but it hasn’t been from a lack of effort on his part.”
    Whyte met members of the board last Sunday for face-to-face talks at Murray Park after the Old Firm clash. He gave the board all the figures, went through the details of the deal, showed his investment plans and provided financial guarantees during a 5pm sit-down.
    Whyte only took the meeting to go through everything again after news of a rival offer emerged from inside the boardroom last week.
    It was claimed that director Paul Murray, 46, and South African-based Dave King, 55, were behind a last-ditch attempt to get Sir David Murray’s shares.
    However, no further details of this alleged bid have emerged. King is still mired in a decade-long court battle with the South African authorities over allegations of unpaid tax and his own five per cent stake in the club has been frozen by the courts.
    Our source said: “Whyte knows there are people at Ibrox who’d be happy for him to walk away. But he doesn’t want to let them win.
    “As far as he’s concerned there is no other bid on the table. Whatever else has been written or said, there is no other take-over deal at Ibrox.
    “He has satisfied everybody that matters. Lloyds, Sir David Murray, and all the working capital, and the investment capital is in place. All the assurances have been given.
    “But there are people who don’t want the deal done. They are involved in stalling tactics. Some members of the independent committee at Rangers should take a close look at themselves.”
    Present owner Murray, 59, is believed to have backed Whyte’s bid and wants an end to all the backroom infighting. He is desperate to help secure Rangers’ financial future and sees Whyte as the only viable option.
    A Murray insider said: “Sir David doesn’t want to leave Rangers in debt, or while the acrimony and boardroom bickering continues.
    “He wants to be able to say ‘I left Rangers with no debts, this is my legacy to the fans.’ He is worried anything tarnishes his reputation.”
    Last night Whyte refused to comment on his position regarding the Rangers take-over. A spokesman said: “Mr Whyte cannot comment on any aspect of the deal because of Stock Exchange rules.
    “Having said that, it is no secret that he is very frustrated by all the delays. He is the only party in this long, drawn-out process, who has never put a deadline on getting it over the line. But no one’s patience is limitless.”

  79. tomtom says:

    Present owner Murray, 59, is believed to have backed Whyte’s bid and wants an end to all the backroom infighting. He is desperate to help secure Rangers’ financial future and sees Whyte as the only viable option.
    A Murray insider said: “Sir David doesn’t want to leave Rangers in debt, or while the acrimony and boardroom bickering continues.
    “He wants to be able to say ‘I left Rangers with no debts, this is my legacy to the fans.’ He is worried anything tarnishes his reputation.”

    Does this man live on a planet near us? If (very big if here) the deal goes ahead the debt is being transferred not cancelled. But maybe he has also convinced himself that he doesn’t owe £700m to the banks.

  80. ramsay smith says:

    Why would Whyte spend £750,000 OF HIS OWN MONEY on due diligence when his fellow bidder carried out due diligence just a few months ago?

    Unless, of course, it’s all just a great big charade.

    And as for the company being set up to carry out the dirty deed? Sounds like a bog standard off the shelf job. No mention either of RFC Holdings (Guernsey) Limited (Andrew Ellis), which, in spite of the fact it’s still shown on the takeover panel’s disclosure table, was wound up last month.

  81. andycol says:

    Sorry I should have said that was liifted from The Huddleboard.

  82. droid says:

    Rhoamin, in the ghloamin, with a civic rit in my hand

    Rhoamin in the ghloamin with a QC by my side,

    And when their fundin stops, bless her and the financial cops

    Oh it’s good to be a TAX PAAYERRR

  83. Lord Wobbly says:

    Tom English is at it again.

    Now, if only he would apply a similar logic to other areas of Rangers ‘PR’ work. “…and stop with this embarrassing game of deflection.”

  84. The interesting aspect is why has Murray authorised English to go after Bain?

    English does not scratch his nose in relation to Rangers without getting Murray’s permission (often just writing articles at the specific request of Murray).

    So why is Murray releasing the hounds on Bain? Has Bain’s efforts to paint himself as defender of Rangers’ fans got Murray worried that will be left in the crosshairs when everything goes down?

  85. Whyte Flag says:

    Because Bain told him Whyte was Waler Mittys long lost brother and was simply interested in liquidating Rangers after he’d raped them. Murray doesn’t give a shit he thinks he’ll be off the hook and can turn round and tell the hun masses (no pun intended!) “It wiznae me that fucked yiz it wiz Whyte”

    The entire Rangers board (save Muir And McGill who stand to profit from the sale, yes they really will get a nice bonus), the entire management team have all implored Murray NOT to sell to Whyte ( forget any shite you read in the papers from Whytes very,very expensive but equally effective PR machine headed exnewspaper men).

    Murray better think really hard before he signs on the dotted line. Look what they’ve done to those affiliated to Celtic then think what they’ll do to the man who at the stroke of a pen signed them out of existence.

  86. ciarans Dad says:

    It’s strange that yet again the independent board set up to ratify any deal minty does, is good for der Hun has once again stalled the fakeover.
    Is it just me or does anyone else see Dave kings paws all over this as he longs to be master mason and lord of darkness.
    He was central to the other last minute bid and is stalling while trying to find a way round SARS block on his share movements. It would also make sense that he is the overall problem as alluded to by RTC that the ‘Whyte Knight’ needs his shares to not only make his dastardly plan work, but also to get the last of the funding he needs. Me thinks this has quite a way to go yet.

    On another matter it is again hunbelievable to read today’s chip wrappers and pore over their take on this never ending saga. You could be forgiven for thinking they had no problems. Did jabba not proclaim during the week that the imminently imminent deal wool take place thursday.
    If I was as piss poor at my job as these floundering hacks I would be joining the ranks of the unemployed alongside that festering sore David Leggat (leggoland)
    Do they never think they have to account for the made up pish they scribble on a day to day basis to salve the marauding hordes desires.
    Not one has made any attempts to speak with the main characters in this car crash soap opera. A bigger dereliction of duty I cannot think of!!!!

    Anyhows, off to join the good guys on our bus on way to what I hope will be a resounding thrashing of the Dundee Huns. Hail Hail

  87. Mark Dickson says:

    some thoughts from recent days

    1. it’s not a ‘fakeover’ imo – a fakeover simply doesn’t make sense given how many people would now have to be in on in or duped into thinking it was real. Also if it was just a sham it wouldn’t solve any problems for LBG and Murray who need out asap, if it wasn’t real what is the point of pretending it was? Would just be wasting everybodies time including their own and confounding the thinking of even their own manager. Put it this way a few thousand ST’s is nowt compared to a massive tax bill. The takeover has to be real even if it was very, tenuous, speculative, contentious and touch n go from whyte for a long time and also with some opposition within RFC

  88. tomtom says:

    My thoughts:

    I agree that it is not a fakeover (at least not from the point of view of Lloyds and Murray). I have already made my views clear on the whole Whyte/Ellis tie up.

    I do believe however that Lloyds and Murray are so desperate to get rid of Rangers that they are prepared to sell it to any party that looks as if they can pay the purchase price. Unfortunately the only person at the moment appears to be Whyte and despite Murray’s stated desire to sell to “someone who has Rangers interests at heart” no such person has emerged. That the consortium that Whyte fronts (let’s get rid of the pretence that he is acting alone) does not have the funds is patently obvious but as they are the only show in town Lloyds and Murray have to go along with them until they run out of excuses. Hence the tolerance of the stalling tactics.

    However Lloyds desire to get rid of such a small debt in relation to the total debts of MIH is, for me, puzzling. Rangers appear to be trading in the black and are paying substantial interest on the debt. What are Lloyds going to do with the money they get for Rangers? Probably lend it to other businesses at a lower rate of interest. So that leads me to the conclusion that there are, with apologies to Donald Rumsfeld, know unknowns that are scaring the preverbial out of Lloyds with regards to Rangers. Maybe it is HMRC but if Lloyds are as covered with the guarantees as everyone seems to think they are then this would not be a problem. Generally as long as a bank has sufficient security over a loan, and they are comfortable with the way the company is being run, they will not cause you any grief (In the course of my business I borrow considerable sums from my bank so I can speak with experience on this) but any deviation from the norm will set alarm bells ringing. If the Ticketus speculation is correct, and this is the first time that Rangers have went down this route, then the bank would have been cacking themselves. Factoring, and that’s what this is, your debts to an external source is the nightmare scenario for any bank. Someone on here with a better grasp of accountancy law can let us know who has first call on the money in these circumstances. If Rangers are seen to be getting funding from other sources without the approval of Lloyds, and after all they have their own factoring arm, this would not have gone down well with the powers that be at Lloyds. I think it is probably safe to assume that Lloyds were not a party to this deal. When was the bank’s man appointed to the board? If it was shortly after this alleged deal happened you have your answer.

    So in a nutshell, and I stress it is only my humble opinion, there are problems at Ibrox that have yet to come into the public domain. Lloyds are running scared and are putting pressure on Murray to get this or any deal done. Interestingly enough it reminds me of a similar scenario in the early 90’s when RBS were Rangers bankers. They were terrified (FOR THE RECORD A SOURCE AT RBS’s WORDS NOT MINE) of what was happening at Ibrox and couldn’t get rid to the account quickly enough. It seems that some things never change. And also for the record if anyone from Ibrox and/or their legal team is reading this and wants to dispute the fact then I am quite happy for RTC to give them my contact details.

  89. Mark Dickson says:

    lloyds want out of rangers for several reasons
    1. they want their money back as quickly and easily as possible, the takeover would seemingly provide that, p.murray/d.king proposals wouldn’t also having already squeezed rangers for 2+ years they would now have to push them into fairly drastic action lie sell all their remaining valuable players or even sell ibrox to get all their money back within a short time period.
    2. lloyds want to end the negative PR and brand image that has been created mainly by rangers and a compliant media to deflect away from the true sources of rangers financial problems. It’s not just rangers fans that have a negative perception of lloyds but due to the way stories have been created or presented so does a large part of the rest of the footbal audience and general public believe that LBG are unsympathetic at best and evil unscrupulous money grabbing at worst.
    3. That it’s being reported LBG will walkaway completely and close RFC’s account tells us all we need to know about how they view how that account has been managed and they want no further dealings with this ‘profitable’ source business for them!
    4. Lloyds statement about them not blocking whytes bid or demanding a £1M exit fee rules out the idea of a fakeover sham for me, i can see why rangers or whyte could possibly be deceiving people but Lloyds bank have no need nor reason to partake in this apparent sham far less comment publicly about it. A fakeover would not serve lloyds interests so why would they entertain or be part of it?
    5. Lloyds want certainty of money back now instead of uncertainty and unpopularity of any forced sale of rangers assets or any administration or liquidation events.

  90. Auldheid says:

    Might be being pedantic but I am fairly sure Rangers bankers in the 2000s were BoS then HBoS and it was when HBOS took over that the Halifax side were alarmed at what had beel allowed to go unchecked at Rangers. It was the arrival of Halifax on the scene that put the brakes on Minty’s excessive spending.I remember having a conversation with a guy with a friemd in the Halifax side of the business around 2003.

    That is not to say the RBS did not have the same worries a decade earlier of course but Rangers foolishness was supported by the same mindset that brought the RBS and HBoS to their knees.

    On everything else you suggest I would put nothing past Rangers. When a word in the right ear staves of consequences why operate in fear of them?

  91. Boab says:

    Indeed, the same Bank of Scotland which had been quite happy to close Celtic.

    One of the first things wee Fergus did was move us to the Co-operative bank if memory serves.

  92. Mark Dickson says:

    the media are scared to report unfavourably on the current or would be owners of Rangers not because they don’t have dirt to dish it’ssimply not in their commercial interest to make enemies or alienate the current or future owners of ibrox until the takeover and taxcase is resolved one way or the other. If whyte fails expect a hatchet job but if he succeeds the truth about him will be put away on the shelf as their sports desks will seek his approval and patronage just as they court favour from murray, bain, desmond, lawwell etc. media access matters more than journalistic truth to them sadly.

  93. Lord Wobbly says:

    From Express Online:

    [“All the working capital and investment required is in
    place and has been ratified. All the assurances needed by
    those that matter have been given so we expect the
    takeover at long last to proceed this week ” said a source
    close to the deal.
    “At a stroke Rangers football club will be completely debt
    free, will have money to invest in new players as well as
    keep key personnel and cash to make stadium and
    training ground improvements.
    “Not many clubs in Britain can say that which is the
    legacy David Murray wanted to leave to the club and the

    “completely debt free” suggests that cash is being donated to the Rangers cause, yes? With no need for repayment, yes?

    Methinks the original draft of the last paragraph was more like:
    “Not many clubs in Britain can say that which is the legacy I….er I mean David Murray wanted to leave to the club and to the supporters”

  94. Boab says:

    That’s certainly what it suggests, Craig Whyte and his chums are paying off about £20m of debt and don’t want that money back. They are also “investing” £25m over the next 5 years and don’t want that back either.

    Do they really believe this obvious propaganda. Goebbels would be proud of the job the papers have done on this one.

  95. Mark O says:

    Great informative and knowledgable comments form everyone, it makes me realise how little I know about the subject!
    If I were a supported of Lloyds I would be extremely worried about the 25% stakeholder Ellis.
    It appears to me after his proposal last year was rejected (probably because he isn’t a “rangers man”) he has scrabbled around and found a “rangers man” in Whyte, when it is obvious he isn’t.

    I state here opinion but it must be right.

    Ellis has paid via Whyte the “due dilligence fees” and has put a wedge into any funding. He has used Whytes “experitse” to raise extra funding via the lines set out by everyone above and is THE man involved and will be the figure head of any deal.
    Whyte has openly admitted he knows nothing of how to manage a football club.
    Ellis has experience although ropey at best.

    rangers fans, be afraid, be very afraid.
    Is Murray at any point going to get an inquisition into his dealings and destruction of a once proud (if disgusting) Scottish institution, the mans a friggin wrecking ball!

    RTC and contributors, I now use this blog more than any other site, you’re all my number 1, even on the day Osama has been killed, I am more interested in the death rattle of RFC.

    great job and please keep it up.

  96. Mark Dickson says:

    ho ho ho more minty moonbeam fantasy….now that he’s created the delusion of course it won’t be his fault when it starts going pearshaped

  97. Thomas314 says:

    It has always been stated by the “Whyte camp” that there has never been a deadline. Now it’s claimed that unless there is substantial progress by end of play Tuesday, he is going to walk away from the deal.

  98. andycol says:

    Some of this morning’s chipwrappers are saying the deadline is Friday.

    Seems it is already slipping. Normally the wait for the 48 hours to elapse before starting on a new 48 hours. Are they starting to confuse themselves?

  99. Mark Dickson says:

    jim traynor asking about the ‘why?’ of whyte’s takeover even mentions the taxcase albeit it in a very broadbrush way.

  100. Barry says:

    Can’t see Craig Whyte inviting him to Castle Grant for some succulent lamb after that small outburst , mind you maybe he’s had enough of lamb after all Murray’s been feeding it to him for 20 odd years

  101. Auldheid says:

    I read that article and it had me wondering if there is now a preference for the devil they know (Lloyds).?

    Abandoning them when they have a vested interest in keeping Rangers alive for someone who might not be that concerned at the end of the day seems foolish to me. At least Lloyds and HMRC have Government backing whilst Whtye?

    I was wondering if Traynor had got a nod from Murray or somewhere to put the focus on the dangers of a takeover rather than the supposed benefits in preparation for a no deal announcement?

  102. Barry says:

    Is this Mr Traynor warning to all rangers fans about Craig Whytes apparent lack of funds or business history , the same man Traynor proclaimed to be their billionaire savior , shame on you Traynor and all of your media fraternity , hopefully soon you will all be shown up as the charlatans you really are

  103. Mikey says:

    Can it be as simple as an LBO and the replacing of LBG as secured creditor pre-administartion to retain those over-valued tangibles?

  104. timtim says:

    The takeover deal for Rfc was finally abandoned earlier today
    when special dark forces from the Kings Own rifles (Cape Town div)
    infiltrated the secret hideout of Sir Summa been Lying in the heart of
    the Borra Borra region in the City of London
    When asked to lay down his throne the cry from within was no surrender
    warning was given that a Whyte knight would come to his rescue
    just as soon as he could shoe his faithfull horse Shareger
    a 48 hr standoff later and news that the horse had bolted after
    the stable door had closed led a weeping Murray onto the balcony
    playing his fiddle for the final time to his favourite tune “Romes burning”
    while crying in vain “a horse a horse my kingdom for a horse”
    with the balcony quickly filling with crocodile tears Murray eventually drowned
    buried in a sea of his own making
    the Kings troops have claimed to have captured dna evidence to prove it was Murray
    Whytes whereabouttery could not be confirmed however

  105. andy says:

    The stitching should have read: “It’s now or never Mr Whyte.”

    Weir himself is still moving quicker than the Rangers takeover but this week could see the deal sealed. Craig Whyte will become the club’s new owner despite the suspicions of a few Ibrox directors who have never been convinced the Motherwell-born businessman is right for Rangers.

    One of them, Paul Murray, tried a late run to prevent Whyte from succeeding but although his rival offer, which would have put £25m into team rebuilding, would have been welcomed by every Rangers fan it was badly timed and did not gain momentum.

    Also, it didn’t make Lloyds Banking Group stop for even a second to reconsider. Of course it didn’t because they have someone willing to pay them £18m to get Rangers off their books and another suggesting the current repayment plan remains in place with all new money going straight into the team. For Lloyds it’s a no-brainer.

    But if Murray and his wealthy backer, who hasn’t broken cover but who isn’t Dave King, had made their move sooner they might have been able to form a powerful connection with the fans. They could then have asked more questions of Whyte’s bid and why he is willing to pay the bank in full, leaving only £5m to £10m for investment in players.

    With another bidder letting the fine detail of his plan be known, questions about whether or not Whyte’s £10m is the entire working capital for the new season – that it will have to cover existing wages and new ones – could have been put.

    He might have had to explain why, after having asked for Walter Smith’s advice on how much was needed to address the problems of a diminishing first-team squad, he then trimmed £10m off the price. But there is another and much bigger question. Why does Whyte appear comfortable with the potential tax liability?

    Why on earth would a smart businessman like him take a gamble which could cost up to £50m? This is the sort of penalty which would make just about every other businessman give Rangers a wide berth.

    But not Mr Whyte. Why not?

    Both Lloyds and the Murray Group have made it clear they won’t be paying any tax bill and that it must sit with the club, yet Whyte must be relaxed about this or he would have walked away a long time ago.

    Of course he could say it’s precisely because he is a smart businessman and that his type can identify ways of operating missed by others but the problem is he doesn’t have to say anything.

    No one has challenged him or laid open his plan for all to see.

    There are stringent Stock Exchange rules which prohibit public dissection of takeover offers but there are also ways of getting the relevant information out there to the fans, who more than any independent board are the only ones who could have made demands. But this takeover is about to go through.

    It has been seven months since Whyte surfaced and although there would always be hours or days of debate over minutiae, this deal has dragged on so long there is now an element of farce attached to it.

    It has been suggested Whyte struggled to get all the money in place and even last week it was being said he had still to come up with the last few million to convince current owner David Murray that he had the funds to invest in the years ahead.

    Naturally Whyte’s two-man PR team – who it must be said have played an absolute blinder even if they haven’t had any competition or rubbished any rival bids – dismiss all criticism with snorts of derision while tossing in little nuggets of info to beef up their own man’s bid. When this is over the Scottish Tories should hire this pair. Annabel Goldie would be in Alex Salmond’s seat in no time and woe betide anyone who dared pull down the Union Flag then.

    But Rangers fans can only hope bad things don’t happen to their club with Whyte, who has been described as a “ghost” by some financial people who have tried to look into his background, in charge. However, they have every right to wonder why someone who has needed an age to gather his money together would want to own a Scottish club with such demanding supporters in today’s harsh financial climate.

    None of us can be sure of Whyte’s finances or motives but we do know one thing. If anyone who wants to own a club finds it difficult to raise the price required he shouldn’t bother. This is a game only for those who can afford to lose millions.

    If Whyte has even the slightest doubt about his plan for Rangers he should walk away. And if David Murray has even the slightest doubt about Whyte then he should not sell to him. Despite Lloyds eagerness to get the deal done these two men must be absolutely certain they are doing the right thing, and not for themselves.

    This is bigger than either one of them and there would be no point in buying and selling only to find in a year or so that it wasn’t just the jersey David Weir wore on Saturday that was stitched together.

    is traynor starting to hedge his bets just in case

  106. I wish one of these journalists would specify these “stringent Stock Exchange rules which prohibit public dissection of takeover offers”. I have looked and I cannot find any.
    There are rules that say that after declaring yourself to be a possible bidder that any statements you do make are legally binding unless you declare otherwise. So if you promise that you will pay £25m for Rangers and that you will invest £5m per year for 5 years on buying players, then your statements have the effect of being legally binding offers.
    So Whyte has only to make sure that the shareholders all hear at the same time and that he is willing to stand behind what he says.
    It is only a problem if you are lying.

    Another point: the claims that the Royal Wedding or stock exchange opening hours have any effect on announcements or negotiations.
    I have looked and I cannot find a single requirement to make announcements when the PLUS market is open or closed.

  107. Thomas says:

    Here, here the right honourable gentleman RTC makes a lynchpin point!

    I’ve poured over the Take Over Code and I see absolutely no rules regarding discussing the deal or making offers outwith the Stock Exchange opening times. Granted all I did was search the page for ‘takeover’.

    But the interesting point is that SDM owns 99% of the shares of Rangers. He did own 92% of working capital but he ‘gifted’ some shares (ergo WC?) to Metilicka.

    Can you enlighten me as to whether Whyte is making an offer for the Working Capital or the Shares? I would have thought it was the shares RTC.

    In this instance surely he would have the 90%+ to go PLC? And thereby his cloak and dagger L-Plan?

  108. Boab says:

    I don’t think he “gifted” anything to Metlika.

    From memory

    MSL owned a share in Rangers.

    Dave King owned a share in MSL. MIH owned shares in MSL

    When MSL was killed off Dave King got the 7% of Rangers shares. They were put into his company Metlika. It wasn’t gifts, it was a business arrangement that involved shares rather then money.

    Again, from memory M IH now own 85% and Metlika own 7% making the total holding 92%. Basically the same as before, but with King having his shares directly (through Metlika).

    I thought at the time it was being done to simplify things.

  109. Thomas says:

    Yes Boab that is correct. Gifted or not I wasn’t sure.

    But…my link above show the percentage of share’s ownership of Rangers which show SDM has a 99% shareholding.

    However, he did have a 92% stake of working capital (now reduced to 85% after DK takes his share).

    Do you or RTC know the difference? (Because I don’t!)

    I’m curious because Whyte will supposedly put £10m of working capital on the table instantly. Is this a cashflow thing? E.g money in the bank to run the day-to-day maintenance, wages etc?

  110. tomtom says:

    When were Murray Sports “killed off”? Their last set of accounts were filed on 31 March 2011 for the period ending 30 June 2010 and their last annual return was lodged on 13 January 2011. I can’t find any record of them ceasing trading. I’m referring to Murray Sports Limited with a company reg no of SC192523. Is their another Murray Sports?

  111. MSL has not been killed off but they have been hollowed out. They no longer own their only assets: Rangers shares. Their loan from MIH was declared paid-in-full. i.e. MIH will have had to write down £60m.

  112. Boab says:

    MIH owned shares, which per the accounts were SDMs, because he controlled MIH (biggest shareholder)
    MSL owned shares which per the accounts were SDMs, because he controlled MSL(biggest shareholder)

    I believe it was the total of those amounts which made up “his” 92%. He controlled those shares rather than being their owner. Basically he controlled the entities which controlled the shares.

    This is from the last set of accounts

    Murray MHL Limited 62,060,479 57.05%
    RFC Investment Holdings Limited 37,448,489 34.42%

    In addition SDM also had a personal holding in the club directly.

  113. Boab says:

    Sorry, didn’t mean to hit the “post”

    Some more notes.

    Sir David E. Murray has an interest of 9,185,065 ‘A’ Ordinary shares of 10p in the share capital of Murray International Holdings Limited (“MIH”),
    representing 62.81% of the voting rights of MIH’s issued share capital. Accordingly, Sir David E. Murray is deemed to have an interest in the 62,060,479
    ordinary shares of the Company (2009 – 62,060,479) held by Murray MHL Limited, a subsidiary of MIH.
    Sir David E. Murray has an interest of 11,305,137 ordinary shares of 10p in the share capital of Murray Sports Limited (“MSL”), representing 57.1%
    of MSL’s issued share capital. Accordingly, Sir David E. Murray is deemed to have an interest in the 37,448,489 ordinary shares of the Company
    (2009 – 37,448,489) held by RFC Investment Holdings Limited, a subsidiary of MSL.
    Other Directors who have an interest in the share capital of MSL are A.J. Johnston 76,616 ordinary shares (2009 – 76,616) and, as an authorised
    representative of Metlika Trading Ltd, a BVI company, D.C. King 3,064,627 ordinary shares (2009 – 3,064,627).

    Basically he controlled 92%, prior to the movement of the MSL shares. However he did also have shares which he held personally. Not sure how many though.

  114. andy says:

    Why on earth would a smart businessman like him take a gamble which could cost up to £50m? This is the sort of penalty which would make just about every other businessman give Rangers a wide berth.

    But not Mr Whyte. Why not?

    Both Lloyds and the Murray Group have made it clear they won’t be paying any tax bill and that it must sit with the club, yet Whyte must be relaxed about this or he would have walked away a long time ago.

    Of course he could say it’s precisely because he is a smart businessman and that his type can identify ways of operating missed by others but the problem is he doesn’t have to say anything.

    No one has challenged him or laid open his plan for all to see.

    james traynor has some neck printing that

    why hasnt he asked any Questions of the billionairre

    Craig Whyte profile: The Scots billionaire on the brink of taking over the club he loves
    Nov 18 2010 Keith Jackson
    Today, aged just 39, this financial whizzkid from Motherwell stands on the brink of pulling off the biggest deal of his life – and finally bringing the curtain down on one of the longest-running sagas in Scottish football.
    Record Sport understands self-made billionaire

  115. Tommy D. says:

    If Whyte was a ‘billionairre’ why would a £25-50m deal be ‘the biggest deal of his life’……shame on you Keith Jackson for blatant lying.

    Only four days to go to the end of the First Tier Tribunial…..nearly time to watch the unravelling ceremony and finally see who the main players were in this poorly directed B-movie.

  116. ed h says:

    Jim Traynor eating the most succulent humble pie.

  117. Jeepster says:

    You have to hand it to Traynor he has done well out of having no talent whatsoever he even got his brother a job watching foot on TV

    Question for RTC or anyone who can help, does this Jelavic deal not mean 3rd party ownership and if so are there no enalties for this?

  118. Weefatbhoy says:

    No J,

    It was a direct transfer between the two club’s, Only the funding was gained differently………………

    However to cheer you up –

    The one (Benefit?) negative in his (well documented) 4m transfer fee to Rangers FC is that when said payment is due it will be closer to 5m………………..

  119. Jeepster says:


    Although as RTC has shown it does not appear on the actual debt figure ( unless I missed it) so would this not add to the debt and or creditors, where would tickitus be in line should they fold, or would they just be able to sell Jelavic and pay them that way???

    There is far more going on at ibrox than anyone has previosly thought

  120. Justinian says:

    Jabba (sorry James) Traynor redtop column…..

    “Craig Whyte’s Rangers takeover is not the way forward for club
    insists rival bidder Paul Murray
    Tuesday May 03 2011

    PAUL MURRAY, who wants to hand Ally McCoist a massive £25million for new
    players, broke cover last night to plead with all Rangers fans – including
    David Murray – to reject Craig Whyte’s takeover bid.”

    Is there no end to this wilderness of smoke and mirrors? @-)

  121. Auldheid says:

    I imagine Paul Murray’s statement in the DR will be subject to a new blog?

  122. salah al din says:

    What I do not understand about what Murray is saying is that if his alternative plan is pursued (ie a share issue to raise £25 million all for Ally, renegotiated facilty with LBG with the intention of moving bankers within a year) then the tax liabilty remains with MIH and LBG and not with Rangers. Does not seem to make sense. It also means that LBG/David Murray will remain as the main shareholders, although the £25 million share issue would dilute their ownership to some extent.

    Interestingly, however, he seems to be implying that as Whyte has not revealed any strategy to deal with an adverse HMRC decision, if this is the outcome then something like one of the scenarios discussed on here could come to pass.

    The statement does not really add any clarity to the situation.

  123. tomtom says:

    Other than “April Fool” there is no statement that could clarify this situation!

  124. Boab says:

    I think that is his point, the share issue would mean that Rangers would still be majority owned by MIH and as the holding company they would effectively have to deal with the tax issue. It would be a bill to Rangers, yes, but because MIH owned 85% of Rangers they would have to deal with it, one way or another. I know it would be less than 85% post a share issue but they would still be the majority holder.

    However if they sell their shares (all of them) then the tax bill moves with Rangers and whoever owns the shares (Whyte) has to deal with any tax liability. According to P Murray Whyte does not have a plan to deal with this scenario and it becomes catastrophic for the club. Not for Whyte though as he is covered (as discussed at length here). Whyte is effectively gambling that they will win, however he is using rangers as chips and not his own money.

    P Murray is suggesting they can have the best of both Worlds. Stay with MIH (they then need to deal with the tax issues), have a share issue and bring in £25m, use that money to sort Rangers out including Ibrox, playing squad etc.

    It wouldn’t work, but that is what he is getting at.

  125. salah al din says:

    But, as LBG has secured debt and effectively controls MIH and Rangers, it could simply liquidate Rangers in order to deal with the tax bill! No?

  126. Boab says:

    How can it “simply liquidate” a business which is meeting it’s comitments. Have you some reason to assume that Rangers have not met all of their requirements and made all of their payments on time.

    I don’t think Lloyds could or would “simply liquidate” Rangers because they received a tax bill which was none of Lloyds’ business.

    They are a creditor, as far as I am aware Rangers have been paying them on time.

    In any case they wouldn’t want to, for PR reasons. HMRC will move to wind Rangers up as soon as they say they cannot pay the bill (including interest and penalties). Lloyds do not need to be seen to be the organisation doing that.

  127. manila says:

    This may be a stoopit question … but I’ll ask it anyway …

    I get that it will be “Rangers” that are billed and I know they do not have the funds to meet it. In this event would the Tax Bill have to covered by all shareholders pro rata? MIH, with 85%, are going to take the lions share of the hit, but does the responsibility trickle all the way down to someone holding a single share.

    I now have the picture in my head of a staunchly dignified bear, who has been gifted one share for a birthday, opening the mail to see a demand for XXX ponds from HMRC and spitting his tea through his polis moustache.

    stoopit ?

  128. Boab says:

    No, Rangers are a limited company, so people’s only risk (liability) is limited to their investment in the business. Basically they can lose everything but not more than that (in the normal course of events).

  129. Eeramacaroonbar says:


    None of the reporting of this story has made sense. It has got to the point where it is just plainly insulting the intelligence of everyone. I read that article myself and got to the bit where it said that Murray would address the HMRC very differently. It then tells you absolutley nothing – he actually says “”But crucially, and I believe fairly, any liability arising from an adverse tax ruling would rest with the Murray Group/Lloyds Banking Group.”

    So we are expected to believe he will come up with a rival offer to Lloyds that DOESN’T pay the debt back at once(like Whyte’s), and also says “oh yeah and by the way, if we get hit with a big bill from Her Majesty…… will have to pay that as well “.

    It is just incredulous to actually hit out with that, nevermind propose it to the bank. Even the dumbest of people could see through all of this, and as I say the press are just insulting our intelligence now…………to extremes.

    This blog and it’s many contributors will be far closer to the truth when it eventually cannot be hidden anymore.

  130. manila says:

    The only way I can understand the Tax situation as it’s portrayed by P. Murray is that the present belief within the Ibrox boardroom must be that the impending bill is the responsibility of MIH/Murray and not Rangers. And as LBG own a pretty big chunk of MIH then they are carrying the can for it as well.

    I know it has been stressed by RTC on here numerous times that HMRC will be invoicing Rangers and Rangers alone … so WTF is going on?

    Irrespective of that, this is at least a sign that both Whytes funding and track record are cause for concern by Ra Peepul charged with the responsibility. Although he does state that he is speaking as an individual.

    Yet more “interesting times”.

  131. tomtom says:

    Rangers are a stand alone company issuing their own accounts and they will have a seperate tax reference. Irrespective of who owns the shares the tax bill will fall on the company and they alone. All that happens is that MIH/Murray or any other shareholder will lose their investment in the case of liquidation.

  132. salah al din says:


    If the tax bill is at a level which Rangers cannot afford, would liquidation not be an option for LBG, or have I not been reading correctly some of the stuff on this blog?

  133. Boab says:

    Once it becomes an issue for Lloyds then they could petition for winding up, however they know HMRCwill do that anyway, so why would lloyds want to do it and get the bad PR for attacking a football club. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

    They may end up having to do it if HMRC or the club themselves don’t do it. However it is unlikely they will have to in my opinion.

  134. DeadDingoesDonger says:

    G-Day Boab and fellow bloggers,

    If my understanding of RTC and all that I have read in this blog is correct then isn’t of greater value to HMRC to kill’s off RFC? They get to hang the corpse out to all in sundry in the UK (Other bigger clubs also in EPL). while offering amnesty to such organisations to come clean or this is what we can do!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: