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

246 Responses to Cost of the UEFA problem

  1. 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.

  2. 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”

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. Mark Dickson says:

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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?

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. ed h says:

    Jim Traynor eating the most succulent humble pie.

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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………………..

  25. 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.

  26. 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? @-)

  27. Auldheid says:

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

  28. 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.

  29. tomtom says:

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

  30. 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.

  31. 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

  32. 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.

  33. 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?

  34. 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”.

  35. 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.

  36. 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?

  37. 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.

  38. 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?

  39. 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.

  40. 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 ?

  41. 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.

  42. 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).

  43. 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.

  44. 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?

  45. 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.

  46. 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!

%d bloggers like this: