Another “Liar” Steps Forward

This morning, the Daily Record carried an interview with Rangers director, Paul Murray.  There must be something in the Perrier served in the Ibrox boardroom as Murray seems to have the same tenuous grasp of the truth as his namesake in Charlotte Square.

In his effort to undermine Craig Whyte’s efforts to buy Rangers, Paul Murray has come forward to speak on-the-record about Whyte’s bid and his own alternative “offering”.  Firstly, I would like to draw attention to the fact that a Rangers director is actually speaking on-the-record.  For 18 months, the Scottish media pack has led us to believe that such an act would be such an egregious violation of “stock exchange” rules that US Navy SEALs can be expected to ‘fastrope’ from Blackhawks and ‘double-tap’ him.  Surely, it is not possible to speak openly on such matters?

Of course it is possible.  It happens in every takeover and is not in any way illegal.  Whyte can also speak on-the-record.  As a registered “potential bidder” his only restrictions are that he needs to ensure that all shareholders could reasonably have received the information at the same time (i.e. a press release through a website) and that what he says becomes legally binding if he later makes an offer: so he had better tell the truth.  The Rangers Board are also free to comment and are only subject to similar minor restrictions.  So the talking-heads on Radio Clyde and Radio Scotland need to stop repeating the lie that no one can speak without breaking the some imaginary law.  (Of course, Whyte, David Murray, and almost every other player in this farce has been leaking like sieves to the media.  That is a breach of the Takeover Code!)

However, it is Paul Murray’s interview with the Daily Record’s notorious James Traynor that got me exercised today.  Let us assume that Traynor has faithfully recorded Murray’s actual statements and intent.

Misleading statement No 1:
“Lloyds would be paid off in full with a cheque for £18m and Whyte would also have to pick up the tab should Rangers lose their fight with HMRC.” (To be fair, this is Traynor’s interpretation and does not include a direct quote).
The implication here is that Whyte would take on a personal responsibility for the tax bill.  The tax assessments are addressed to “The Rangers Football Club plc” and it is Rangers FC that has been appealing these tax assessments for over two weeks in a First Tier Tribunal meeting daily in Edinburgh.  Corporations are treated as ‘legal persons’.  The shareholders of a business are not liable for the debts of the businesses they own (except in rare cases).  What Paul Murray / Traynor should have said is that “Rangers will be left with responsibility for the tax bill should Whyte take over.  Traynor does say later: Secondly, he is extremely concerned that Rangers are to be fully exposed to an adverse outcome from the HMRC tribunal because the club will still carry the responsibility for any liability after the deal has been completed.  Note the words “still carry”.

Misleading statement No 2:
“But crucially, and I believe fairly, any liability arising from an adverse tax ruling would rest with the Murray Group/Lloyds Banking Group.”
This quote can be taken a few ways.  It could be misread as meaning that currently the responsibility for the tax bill rests with the Murray Group or Lloyds Banking Group.  We know that this is not true.  Perhaps most worryingly for Rangers fans is if a member of the current board is naive enough to believe that two organisations which currently have no liability for Rangers’ tax bill will simply volunteer to pay this bill.  If this is the best he can come up with, Rangers are in very serious trouble indeed.  His plans for investing cash now while the tax bill looms is madness.  I cannot imagine that this is a serious plan from a serious man.  It looks like yet another Rangers director playing to the cheap seats and trying to protect his reputation for when the axe falls.  (See Alastair Johnston’s admissions of 1 April for his own efforts and Martin Bain’s pandering to the worst elements of the Rangers support while bleating about conspiracies).

Would it be wrong to call Paul Murray a liar?  He is most certainly intentionally misleading Rangers’ supporters and shareholders.  If he does not issue a statement clarifying both of the misleading statements at the core of the article, then we can only assume that Traynor captured Paul Murray’s words and meaning correctly.  If Paul Murray is content to leave this article uncorrected, he would have no defence against the charge that he is allowing false impressions to be left.  Scots Law requires that there be a pattern of lying before someone can be called a ‘liar’, but it will not take too many more misleading statements before the word “liar” could be attached to Paul Murray.

What will it take for an honest man to come forward and level with Rangers’ supporters about what has happened and the seriousness of their situation?  When will a sufficiently wealthy man step forward who can absorb the £78m (£18m to Llloyds + £60m HMRC) that it could take to simply buy Rangers and cover the maximum tax bills?  Rangers fans need to understand the criticality of their situation to organise a rescue from insolvency.  The lies copied and pasted by the “Laptop Loyal” trying to curry favour with their favourite Rangers director or wannabe-owner have retarded the process of accepting the seriousness of the club’s problems.  If Rangers Football Club dies as a result of its current problems, Scotland’s journalists who claim to love the club will bear almost as much blame as the directors who presided over conscious, intentional tax fraud.

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.

214 Responses to Another “Liar” Steps Forward

  1. andy says:

    i think the decision on the tax case is 4-6 weeks after the hearing is completed

  2. Gary says:

    RTC, Having thouroghly enjoyed your blog albeit a bit technical for me, I have been talling all my Rangers friends about it. They have now spent hours studying you comments and have came to a completley different conclusion. Wait for it!

    You are a double Agent Rangers Fan giving us dims (their words) false hope. Ye canny win.

  3. Ian58 says:

    That’s good to hear, Gary.
    I, for one, don’t want them to realise the truck is heading towards them until the last moment.
    Or maybe just a little before that.
    Just long enough for the fact to sink in that it’s bearing down on them but there’s no time left to get out of the way.

    I’m also grateful to RTC for giving us the privilege of sitting in the passenger seat.

  4. They are welcome to come on and show an alternative analysis of the tax case facts. If anyone wants to present an alternative analysis based upon Rangers’ financial statements and what we know of tax law, I would love to hear it.

  5. Mark Dickson says:

    there is virtually zero chance that any rangers football team will be disbanded or demoted to the bottom rung of the ladder despite that being what should happen in terms of fairness and justice however i think we all know and realise that rangers and celtic are too intrinsic to the SPL for them ever to be demoted or relegated. Rangers in whatever form they take in future will be INVITED into the SPL by the other clubs INCLUDING Celtic – that is simply the real-politik of Scottish football, it is simply wishful thinking and a waste of brainpower to hope and believe otherwise. Sad but true!

  6. Boab says:

    They won’t have to be “demoted or disbanded” if they are wound up, they won’t exist any more. Rangers United or some such may be brought into existence but that is an entirely separate issue. No one has yet told me how that is going to be funded, other than the chap who reckons they will put a team together with free transfers and play in front of 40,000 every other week.

  7. Mark Dickson says:

    Apart from Hearts i don’t think any other SPL team has a player budget exceeding £5M and almost all of them average crowds of less than 10k per home game. Rangers could lose 80% of their home support, unlikely imo, but still be getting comparable or higher crowds than Hibs, Aberdeen and Dundee Utd based on recent attendance levels. 10K season tickets sold would bring them enough money as 10 other SPL teams to finance their team for a season. That might be shocking to the reality that Old Firm fans have been used to seeing in the last 2 decades but it is the reality for the remainder of Scottish football. How do these other clubs pay their way and put a team on the park? Nobody is bank rolling them anymore, only what they take though the gate and spl money.

  8. Boab says:

    That does not change the fact that they would be starting from scratch, with no players whatsoever. Bearing in mind that they would also have to pay to rent the stadium under the new scenario people are putting forward, and almost certainly pay a security on deposit to HMRC. That money has to come from somewhere, as does the players wages.

    I am not saying that there would be no Rangers, I never have said that, quite the reverse I am absolutely sure ther will be. I am not saying that they would not build back up, I most certainly think they would, no question in my mind. However I do not think it would be a wee glitch for a season or two as other people appear to be suggesting. It would be a difficult and drawn out process over years, unless someone were to come along with a shedload of money. I don’t see that person anywhere just now. Even if that person did come forward they would really just be back where they are now.

    Bearing in mind we are talking about a hypothetical liquidation which I don’t believe will happen.

  9. A very good point Mark.

    What the rules actually say and what will happen will be very different. To be honest, it is not in the financial best interests of Celtic to see Rangers disappear.

    So the only risk to what you suggest would be a lawsuit by a disadvantaged club, but that could see such a club expelled from the SFA if they went to court.

    So I think you are right.

  10. J G says:

    I wonder what Dundee FC arethinking about this situation at IBROX.
    They got docked 25 points for going into administration in midseason but the typical SFA are waiting until seasons end before asking Rangers if they would be so kind as seeing their way to pay the compensation for Walter smith transfer.
    Rangers should be punished now.
    They don’t deserve special treatment.
    They have much much bigger debts than Dundee but are getting away with it.
    Taxman and Lloyds TSB should foreclose on them right now.
    They would do it for everyone else so why not Rangers.

  11. Dundee’s situation is very different. Different tax problems and different rules for administration in the SFL than the SPL.

    Dundee deserve the hammering they got. They borrowed money and plundered the other clubs in their division. SFL rules do not have a prescribed punishment for insolvency. So the chairmen of the clubs who suffered at Dundee’s hands took revenge.

  12. Thomas314 says:

    Also bear in mind that Dundee went into administration for a second time! Hence the 25 point penalty!

  13. Boab says:

    The “taxman” is doing it, however Rangers appealed the assessment so it has to go through the legal procedure.

    Rangers really need to win this appeal, or at the very least get the panel to reduce the amount significantly. (If such a thing is possible)

  14. Casual Observer says:

    Was interested to see the deal for the Rolls Royce plant at Inchinnan.

    £53M for a comparible footprint to Ibrox, delivering £3.5M per year income at 6.6% yield, with a gilded tenant locked in for 17 years at 1.5% annual rental increases.

    Of course Rangers in their current state are by no means as good a risk as RR, but as a comparitor, it’s an interesting deal.

    I figured previously that the treatment of the property will be central to the outcome for Rangers. Given that tonight it looks as though Whyte will finally close his deal for the club, it is highly likely the purchase debt will be loaded onto the club with a security on the property.

    HMRC susbsequesntly puts Rangers into Admin, Whyte’s company takes the property in exchange for the debt, and Whyte takes Rangers out of admin as tenants to the property co. This would effectively value the stadium at say £25-30M, which is about half what I figure the value is based on typical yields on a retail site genreating +£40M per annum.

    Still, it’s all inferred speculation. grand fun as it is.

  15. Weefatbhoy says:

    Yeah CO, I agree

    If it (fakeover) is concluded and through time Whyte does as you suggest with regards “A security on the property” the way (IMHO) I could possibly see him making a return is……………….

    1. Rent Ibrox & Murray Park back to Rankgers FC.

    2. Sell the naming rights to Ibrox stadium, – ie:- *Tesco Stadium*

    3. Open Murray Park up to a members only facility (Out-with the club’s training hours)

    4. Re-Sell all the restaurant and catering outlet’s to franchise tendering.

    The (Four) examples above are some of the possibilities he could pursue to enhance his income from said plan……………………

    But would it ALL be in vain ????????????????

  16. Boab says:

    Good ideas, well number 1, is.

    2, Would require someone wanting the rights. Rangers can’t even get decent deals just now. Celtic get £5m per year, for the next 5 years, from Nike. Rangers have nothing like that. It’s one of the big differences in the club finances.

    3, They can’t really have a members only facility. Part of the permission to build it was that it was to be used partly as a local amenity. Not sure if that is still in place but I think so.

    4, They already do that and it’s hardly been a great success. I believe the contract changed hands recently.

  17. Casual Observer says:


    Has anyone, ANYONE, got a plan for Rangers losing the tax case that does not involve Administration?

  18. Boab says:

    That clearly depends on the amounts concerned, and I believe that the tribunal can rule in favour of HMRC but question the calculations / amount due. However if it is in the region of £30m (tax and interest) and awaiting a penalty on top of that, then it’s difficult to see an alternative. Remembering that it will probably be Rangers placing themselves into administration, to protect themselves from liquidation.

  19. 7upfree says:

    Genuinely intrigued by the insolvency end game here. This is not my core specialism but I know enough to get by. Is it not the case that the creation of fresh securities at this juncture would amount to a preference and thus may be reduced at the instance of e.g. An administrator. I seem to recall under the 1986 act that there is six month and two year cut off for the lookback period post insolvency. Six months and they are still in an appeal I would guess but it would seem a heck of a gamble to me.

  20. 7upfree says:

    Having looked at it a little more this morning, there is only a six month look back period for preferences. Don’t think that the gratuitous alienation provisions would apply here. This would explain the anxiety to get the deal done asap ie survive 6 months from the sale date then even if all is lost in the tax case, the purchasers position is protected. Hmrc are then forced to accept pennies in the pound or nothing at all in an administration scenario. Smart thing here would be a double flip of the heritable assets to a separate co.

  21. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Boab, no, don’t think I said that and yes, a floating charge cover ALL assets not otherwise charged or excluded by agreement 7up free, I doubt the Administrator would bring such a challenge, who else would? I agree that any creditor may challenge (Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 section 36 (4)) but is that likely?

  22. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Or, as I said in my earlier posting, Whyte could have the existing securities assigned to him, keeping them in place and avoiding all of the questions posed here

  23. Boab says:

    Sorry, bit confused here. I thought you were saying he could organise a floating charge, would that be the same as getting existing securities assigned to him.

    Again forgive me for my ignorance but would the securities not be against specific assets, as opposed to the charge which would be against all assets up to the level of the lending.

  24. 7upfree says:

    Yes agreed. Only reason I discounted was on the basis that there is likely a need for consent on the part of the debtor. There’s a risk that their consent may amount to granting a preference.

  25. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Boab, no, don’t think I said that and yes, a floating charge cover ALL assets not otherwise charged or excluded by agreement 7up free, I doubt the Administrator would bring such a challenge, who else would? I agree that any creditor may challenge (Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 section 36 (4)) but is that likely?

    (Posted this in the wrong bit earlier……..)

  26. 7upfree says:

    OnandOnandOn, possible that the revenue might fund the administrator or whoever. I think there would some political pressure to do so – have seen it in a few cases recently. More importantly, suspect that they could never escape the clutches of adminstration without dealing with the revenue which raises the prospect of a different insolvency end game…

  27. OnandOnandOnand says:

    7upfree, I think we both agree that this will end in liquidation, there really is no way to avoid it. I won’t repeat my earlier postings on this, see above if you’re interested in my reasoning. Given that Mr Whyte is no stranger to insolvency proceedings, I’m sure he’s worked that one out already and is a man with a plan….

  28. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    Some very interesting discussion on BBC RADIO SCOTLAND a moment ago where Jim Spence has just (to my knowlege) asked the single most probing, investigative questions of Craig Whyte’s intentions (certainly in public) than any other journalist/commentator on the whole takeover subject.

    I will leave the analysis of the discussion to RTC or the likes with better skills than myself, but some interestong probing questions put to the journo who appeared to be well in the loop and briefed by those ‘close to the deal’. Of course, these kindof questions are asked on here frequently and RTC and others answer/cojecture in what possible/likely outcomes could be, but finaly we are hearing these, quite obvious and reasonable questions entering the Scottish MSM.

    Hats off to Jim Spence IMO. Obviosly doesn’t dine at the succulent lamb table.

  29. tomtom says:

    Not that it should matter but a couple of weeks ago when the news of the UEFA investigation broke Jim Spence did say to Chick Young that “25 years ago people from his background were not welcome at Ibrox”

    As I say it shouldn’t matter but who knows!

  30. I missed that tonight. Do you know if it is available on iPlayer or if you can provide a link to it?

  31. micknagopaleen says:

    What questions did Jim spence ask? He has always struck me as one of the most intelligent “journalists” on radio – dismissed by the idiots, like Traynor, presumably because he is from the sticks.

  32. Alwayslookingin says:

    The link for tonights Sportsound

  33. Many thanks

  34. manila says:

    Reports that Whyte and The Mint have agreed terms with the announcement to be on Friday. So the “fakeover” is concluded, and now the “fuckover” can commence.

  35. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    David Murray is clearly so desperate to flee the scene of the tax crime that he will give his shares away for £1. Lloyds are desperate for the Whyte takeover because they get full repayment of the £20m owed. But what are Whyte’s intentions? And why are board members (who have RFC’s best interests at heart) sceptical of Whyte?

    Tabloids are today foolishly talking of mega transfer war-chests. Dont laugh… They really believe what they are fed!


  36. tomtom says:

    They’re sceptical of Whyte because they have seen his proposals. Unfortunately they have no real teeth and will eventually do their masters bidding. When this whole farce plays out you can be rest assured that Johnson and the rest of the independent vetting party will come and tell “we told you so”.

    What would annoy me if I was a bear is that none of them have the balls to tell the story now – they are keeping their heads down low, for whatever reason, but the truth will come out and it won’t be pretty.

  37. Eeramacaroonbar says:

    Exactly right tomtom,

    Rangers have been DESPERATE for a saviour. If Whyte was anything like the red tops have been making him out to be then the deal would have been concluded a long, long time ago. They would have bitten his hand off if it was even remotley good for the club.

    The very fact that the Rangers directors were prepared to air their concerns about it , when the club are so close to complete meltdown and run the risk of scaring off their only option speaks volumes.

    There is a lot more to this story and I have a feeling when it eventually all comes to light that this blog and it’s contributions will be there or thereabouts regarding the truth.

  38. tomtom says:

    Another thing that I would be suspicious about is that if it takes this long to achieve a takeover with the amount of (duplicated) due diligence that has been done what are they going to be like when it comes to buying a player? Start negotiations this summer and complete in the January transfer window.

  39. Boab says:

    The only reason I can think of for the level of “due diligence” that appears to have gone on here, both by Ellis and Whyte (which is bizarre given that they are supposed to be “partners” in this so they would surely have shared their research), is that it was so complicated and convoluted that it has taken an age for them to understand everything.

    Difficult to understand why that would be given that they are effecively buying the club from one willing seller who would give them free unfettered access to everything they wanted and have his people be as helpful as possible. With a bank who are clearly happy with the deal and want it to go through.

    Or, and here’s a weird notion, the whole thing has been stage managed to give the fans hope in the run up to season ticket time, with Whyte not actually having decided either way. The final decision may well have been dependent or certain other factors e.g. winning the SPL or whatever.

  40. tomtom says:

    I can understand due diligence taking an age if the purchasers were novices to this but are they not supposed to be “experts” in buying ailing businesses and turning them around. Surely this can’t be the first time they have bought a company that is in financial difficulties. Or maybe they have been stringing Lloyds and Murray out until the debt got lowered. If I remember when Whyte entered the running the purchase price was somewhere around £34m. Now it would appear to be £18m for Lloyds and £6m for Minty. Keeps going on like this and they will be paying him to take it off their hands!

  41. tomtom says:

    Alastair Johnson obviously reads this blog:

    “Our views will come out in the future and I’m comfortable with that – but I don’t want to stand in the way of progress. I will resign as intended on May 16 but will be working hard until then to make sure Rangers secure the SPL title. After that, I will go back to being the club’s number one fan.

  42. Andy fitzpatrick says:

    Hi RTC
    Can we have a drum roll for the big f/takeover.
    BBC Scotland and radio Clyde say it will be done n dusted tonight,,so it must be true.

  43. Paulsatim says:

    Not yet, apparently!

    ‘Minor’ hitch in Rangers takeover


    6 May 2011
    CRAIG WHYTE expected to complete his takeover of Rangers around tea-time last night before an unexpected problem arose which will delay it until this afternoon or possibly Monday.

  44. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    Rangers’ PR machine does it again… The Rangers fans are buying season tickets like there’s no tomorrow! *snigger*

  45. ramsay smith says:

    If Rangers were to go into Administration immediately or enter a CVA what is the position with the tax debt?

    Is it treated as a debt and would HMRC have a vote as a creditor or do they have to wait until the tribunal and any appeal arising from it is finalised before they acquire the status of a creditor?

    Could Whyte put Rangers into administration now and effectively avoid the tax debt?

  46. Boab says:


    The tax debt stands, as the assesments have been raised. The tribunal is part of the appeal process and puts collection of the debt on hold, it does not expunge it until the ruling is given, and only then if it is favour of the appelant.

    In any case a business in administration is still a business, still trading, still making money, still having costs. It is just being run by an administrator rather than it’s owners or board. In an ideal World the administrator can turn the business round and make it profitable again.

  47. ramsay smith says:

    ‘The tax debt stands, as the assesments have been raised’

    That was my understanding. Thank you for the confirmation.

  48. peter lamb says:

    i have spoke to some one who has worked in insolvency for a few years and he has stated that rangers would be able to pay off this debt over 15-20 years! now this chap was a rangers fan and i am inclined not to believe him but i thought this would be the place where i would get any thing close to a truthful and informed answer. does anyone know of anything like this in the past with HMRC bills?
    i have a feeling he was taking the Michael but that might just be because i want him to be!!

  49. Boab says:

    Any “time to pay” negotiations would have happened when Rangers made their first appeals to HMRC and they carried out their own reviews of the assessment. Not necessarily at the same time but as part of the same process. Once HMRC had reviewed their numbers and finalised it from their perspective then Rangers could have asked for time to pay that figure. However if it was so high they may not even have bothered and went to the tribunal. I would be truly astonished if HMRC allowed years to pay, never minnd 15 to 20 as your chum suggests. Let’s face it, If the total bill was £30m and HMRC allowed them a decade to pay it that’s still £3m going out before you kick a ball (pun intended). Asking for time to pay would be pretty pointless. In a year with no CL money Rangers struggle to break even, before you even factor in such a sum. HMRC know that.

    It would certainly have happened before the tribunal started.

  50. peter lamb says:

    nice one boab, as i thought this blog comes up trumps yet again within 10 minutes 2 informed answers. this chap was on another blog which again made me doubt his claims but before i poured scorn on to him i thought i should at least be a little informed myself!
    i would be gutted if they where found guilty and some how managed to wriggle out of paying the bill!!

  51. tomtom says:

    I’m sure that nowadays any deals to pay HMRC on the drip incur interest charges and even then they are very reluctant to enter into these arrangements. If the tax bill was the only thing that would put the company out of business then they may consider it. This would be very much a last resort but only if, by letting the company go out of business, they would not get their money back.

    As it seems to stand HMRC could get their money back from the “assets” of RFC so I don’t think they would be prepared to wait. As we have previously discussed this is very much a test case and I’m sure that HMRC wouldn’t want to set any precedents as the bills that certain English clubs are going to get will be significantly higher than Rangers.

  52. Boab says:

    The expected level of debt simply makes time to pay a practcal impossibility. Remember we have tax, interest and penalties, and even if that comes to £30m (and some predictions are way abve that) Rangers simply couldn’t pay it back. HMRC have to consider that this amount is in addition to the ongoing tax liability, and the likely profits from the business (the extra tax being paid back comes from profits).

    If HMRC were to give Rangers 5 years to pay it back that’s £6m a year, in addition to their normal liability. Without guaranteed CL money rangers have no chance of paying that. None whatsoever. HMRC know this and Rangers know this and that is why time to pay would never have reasonably been an option.

    Appealing to the tribunal was the only avenue open, and whether or not they thought they had a “robust” case doesn’t really matter. There was no place else to go.

  53. droid says:


    would there not be a further compound interest factored into the said 15 – 20 years PAYE back?

  54. ramsay smith says:

    peter lamb says:
    06/05/2011 at 12:01 pm
    ‘i have spoke to some one who has worked in insolvency for a few years and he has stated that rangers would be able to pay off this debt over 15-20 years’

    Did he also tell you that Rangers never had a policy of not employing Catholics?

  55. peter lamb says:

    Cheers for the link ramsey!!

    i dont think he would have been as stupid to have claimed that they didnt!! but then again perhaps he too gets his information from minty himself, much like the scottish MSM, in which case who knows what he would come out with .


  56. Mark Dickson says:

    so the glory years of sir minty moonbeam that were broadly damaging for scottish football in many ways have finally (almost?) come to an end for the inglorius sum of a quid! That’s it and nowt more, that’s how much 85% of Rangers FC is currently worth! I wonder how the redtops can spin that sorry fact into the dawn of the brave new red whyte and blue era?

  57. Boab says:

    You could argue it the other way, that he is also losing the debt, so is in effect getting £20,000,001.

    Losing a minus is the same as gaining a plus.

  58. Mark Dickson says:

    the twenty million owed to lloyds was rangers debt not minty’s, will whyte make rangers any less indebted? If not and he replaces old debt with new debt then the fact remains majority control of RFC at this moment of time is worth less than an hours parking ticket in charlotte square.

  59. tomtom says:

    He more than got his money’s worth out of Rangers. Without the exposure he got he would never have built up his “empire”. Plus all the little company’s that provided services to Rangers.

    It will be interesting to see the advertising at Ibrox next year as most of the boards are from company’s that Minty has an interest in (steel and buses). Where are they going to fill that gap?

  60. easyJambo says:

    RTC – Are you in a position to confirm that the FTT has ended today or been extended further?

  61. No. Last I heard (Wednesday) was that it was on schedule to finish today. I will know more by Monday.

  62. Boab says:

    Is this the tribunal which is likely to finish Friday, or the takeover saga.

  63. Paulsatim says:

    No #fakeover today …
    There is no question of this Rangers takeover going through. The sticking point, as explained to me today, is an utter frippery.


    “UTTER FRIPPERY” ???? Whats it got to do with King Crimson?

  64. Paulsatim says:

    Unless Craigy Whyte is a 21st Century Schizoid Man!

  65. Lord Wobbly says:

    Paulsatim, your a man after my own heart. But I think you may have stumbled onto something. The full track listing for that album is:

    1. 21st Century Schizoid Man including MIRRORS
    5. THE COURT OF THE CRIMSON (necked?) KING including the return of the fire witch and THE DANCE OF THE PUPPETS

    You couldn’t make it up!

  66. tomtom says:

    The minor hitch point is that he doesn’t have the money. Now wouldn’t that be wonderful.

  67. Of course, we know that he does have previous for signing deals to buy companies but then does not come up with the cash. Search the takeover panel website for Whyte’s name.

    Although, I see the media are now heralding it as a ‘done deal’. It might well be, but until the shares are exchanged (still several steps to go before that is done), MIH remain the owner of Rangers.

  68. Tschichold says:

    Wish Whyte would hurry up. Can’t wait to hear his first press conference.

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

    I’m not well versed in legal jargon or the technicalities of a fakeover but how come we keep getting told by the laptop loyal poodles that noone can discuss this fakeover due to stock market regulations as it’s all super hush hush…… yet all and sundry know the huns are being sold for the price of a Macdonalds hamburger (with cheese) e.g. £1 today and the war chest bullion awaiting Swally. Are these guys as thick as they seem? Are these leaks are not in some way going against said stock market rules or like in SFA terms do the huns contnue to make up their own rules?

    Shower of jokers the lot of em’ and to think this sad country of ours panders to this mob in so many ways.

    Getting closer every day to the HMRC ruling, and it might be a while yet but if this case goes in HMRC favour I’ll raise a full glass of fine red wine to the taxman…..and shake my head at that David Murray character for where he’s left scotlands shame.

    can’t wait for your next article RTC.

  70. Lord Wobbly says:

    Crikey! SDM’s tentacles reach further than I thought. No sooner does he give Alex Salmond his backing and we see the SNP sweep to a majority.

    Imagine for a moment, if you will, that we see the dissolution of both Rangers Football Club AND the Union within a generation. Where will that leave certain sections of our society?

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

    and then what would become of ‘ra peepil’?

  72. Millar76 says:

    So it’s now a done deal, finalised.
    Anyone care to guess what is next as this blog has now proved to be a little wishful in it’s thinking in that it will never happen

  73. Mark says:


  74. Jeepster says:

    Sold for £1 (keith Lemon doing Kerry Katona required)

  75. 7upfree says:

    Guess who is also a director of wave tower? Andrew Ellis.

    Also Philip John Betts is a director of the new co and, wait for it, Merchant Turnaround plc. Where have we heard that name before…..

  76. easyJambo says:

    I’m surprised that Whyte plans to retain Rangers stock exchange listing for a minimum 12 months. It means that he will have to be transparent in any significant activities in the club, that could affect the share price, e.g transferring whatever borrowings he used to fund the takeover, onto the club.

  77. greencar20 says:

    That’s what I thought.
    I’m no expert, but how easy/hard would it to be to remove it from the stock exchange listing?

  78. droid says:

    would it be too far fetched to propose that this ‘transparency’ measure has come about as either

    a) direct pressure from HMRC


    b) some form of manouvre to appease HMRC whilst trying to out fox them


  79. 7upfree says: says it all really….

  80. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Good to see my assertion that the debt would be assigned was on the money. I’m sure the rest of my analysis is just as valid


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: