Whyte of the long knives

The news that Alastair Johnston and Paul Murray have been removed from the Rangers’ board, swiftly followed by reports that Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre have been suspended pending an inquiry into financial irregularities, is somehow still stunning despite its predictability.  What makes these events remarkable is the lack of decorum.  Whyte was always going to form his own board.  In fact, I have been surprised that he has waited this long.  (Some have suggested some legal i-dotting and t-crossing was required before Whyte could act).  However, following most takeovers, the changing of the guard usually proceeds without much of a fuss or fanfare.  The rules for how to remove board members varies from company to company, but the mechanics for a new owner to place his own directors on the board should be straightforward.  When you own 85% of the company, you can have the directors of your choice.  (Dave King’s board seat may be guaranteed by previous contracts related to his original investment).  It is the style of this “night of the long knives” that marks a stunning departure for Rangers (or at least a leap back to pre-David Murray times).

This blog has nodded and winked at the extent of wrong-doing by prominent members of the Rangers board.  I know for a fact that the actions of some board members would shock even those who has been following the financial fate of Rangers FC closely.  At some point this was always going to explode.   However, there are more questions than answers about Whyte’s motivations in acting now and in this manner.

Has Whyte had a sudden epiphany after getting access to the ‘real’ behind the scenes information? Contrary to popular myth ‘due diligence’ does not guarantee that a potential buyer gets access to all of the information he requests.  The seller always has the right to simply withhold any data of his choice.  The only obligation of the seller is to not tell outright lies about the prospects for the firm.

Alternatively, is this just a stage-managed event to portray the previous board as the villains who will be responsible for any failure to deliver on promises leaked to the media during the long takeover process?

Are Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre under investigation for EBT-related activities or is this a separate issue altogether?  I can say that the EBT-related activities of board members was not some rogue action secretly executed by one or two individuals.  To a fault, board members over-communicated what they were doing.  If today’s news is EBT-related, then I would be ready to declare these dramatic moves as a smokescreen to distract from other actions.  Every Rangers FC board member since 2001 will have been aware of the EBT.  I know of five who definitely had detailed involvement in its operation.  Two of these directors remain on the board.

We cannot ignore the fact that as executive directors, Bain and McIntyre will be on significant salaries and will likely have some job security through multi-year contracts.  Such contracts can only be terminated for ’cause’.  Such cause has to be very serious for terminations to be upheld, but if a case can be made that shows the executive to be untrustworthy, the terminations will stick.  This could all just simply be a pretext to fire two highly paid people without having to pay them for the remainder of their contracts.

The refusal of Alastair Johnston and Paul Murray to resign is a further sign of their deep misgivings about the new Rangers ownership.  That Johnston broke with the standard cover story about ‘confidence’ over the tax case to express concerns that Whyte had shown no proof of having the funds to pay such a bill would have made his removal inevitable.  That Paul Murray broke ranks to try to organise an alternative financing program to thwart Whyte’s advances will also have marked his cards.  However, this is just standard corporate politics and normally defeated directors in a hostile takeover fall on their swords. This is inevitable when 85% of the shares are held by one shareholder.  That both Johnston and Murray have tried to make as big of a splash on their departures as possible can be interpreted as a warning.  I am bound by a promise of confidentiality to a source of information, but I know that Johnston and Murray would have solid reasons (not tax case related) to want to send a warning to the Rangers support at-large.

It will be interesting to see how willing and/or able these four directors will be to speak to the media (old and new).  Even if gag-agreements are in place leaks happen in the normal course of events.  The challenge will be for the Scottish media to publish their comments.  Most Scottish media outlets will want to continue dining on the easy meals of succulent lamb fed from Ibrox.  Journalists whose salaries depend on getting their quota of transfer exclusives and interviews with players will fear retribution for printing anything not approved by the new politburo.  However, I suspect that Hay McKerron will be busier than they ever imagined in the coming weeks.

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.

240 Responses to Whyte of the long knives

  1. Boab says:

    That basically means that the fans thought David Murray should invest another £50m in Rangers to get the club out of the financial mire. They thought that he was responsible and that he should pay for the mess. Fair do’s.

    Do you really think that, if there is a further share issue, the fans will think that it is their mess to clear up. I suspect that they will think that, now Whyte has come in, part of his job is to put the money in to clear everything up. Bearing in mind that most of the potential small shareholders are probably season ticket holders or regular attenders. They probably think they already put enough into the club as it is. Particularly during such hard economic times.

    It is only my opinion, based on history, but I do not think a share issue would be a success if it relied on large numbers of small investors. A few wealthy businessmen, or institutions might just work, but not trying to sell it to the rank and file supporters. Just so we are clear, I think the same would be true for any other club just now.

  2. Adam says:

    Chris – I disagree with you. Back then, Murray was flashing his wealth and cash. Buying Property after property and was “seen as” one of the wealthiest men in Scotland. The Rangers fans, me included, knew he was underwriting the debt so why should i blow £1000 on shares, when i know that:

    a) the reality of shares in a football club is that they are worthless.
    b) If i wanted a small heart share, i could get a few for a tenner.
    c) The wealthiest man in Scotland who created this £70m debt has agreed to underwrite £55m of it irrespective of what i do.

  3. Boab says:

    Be honest Adam, if Rangers didn’t there would be a big “broohaha” about it. The new regime could not win the fans over any better than by proclaiming that they had paid off Lloyds themselves and written that debt off so that Rangers were now totally debt free.

    But we know that, financially that would make no sense just now. By keeping the debt and security they protect themselves (AND RANGERS) from potential creditors, as they hold security over the main assets.

    FFS Adam, if I was you I would be praying that Rangers owed the money to Whyte. Then if there is a tax bill Whyte gets to keep the assets, and ressurect the club after administration / liquidation is over. If Rangers are debt free then HMRC would have claim over everything and could wind the business up, liquidating everything and picking over the bones.

    From your point of view, as a fan, it is much better if Whyte holds the debt. Then if you win against HMRC he can write the debt off. You must agree that makes much more sense.

  4. Adam says:

    I agree that the fans will think its Whytes duty to clear everything up. If he does as he says he is going to do though, and puts the club into a “debt free” state(I wont hold my breath) then asked the fans to buy shares in order to increase transfer fees and wages, then i think thats when you would get buy in.

    I agree though that the few wealthy businessmen would be the best way to go, though your rank and file would support such a scheme to a lesser degree.

  5. Adam says:

    But Whyte has claimed we are “debt free” Boab. He said it on his first ever interview on Rangers TV.

  6. Number 7 says:

    Adam how can you be pretty sure the debt has been paid off- has there been a statement to this effect? I can recall that the debt was “assigned” to Wavetower, but nohing else.

  7. Ciarans Dad says:

    The latest from Blotto’ (Leggoland)



    ANYONE who was shocked by the blood letting in the Ibrox boardroom yesterday has not been paying attention.

    It was entirely predictable that Craig Whyte would take the action he did after the way things turned out when he moved into the last lap of his takeover.

    But with Martin Bain now suspended, Whyte must move quickly to put someone in place who knows the ins and outs of transfer deals and football regulations.

    Bain had inherited the task of dealing with much of the detail of this after Campbell Ogilvie left, and during the period it took for him to learn the ropes Rangers were vulnerable in these areas.

    They are vulnerable again, though, if what we have seen already of the way Whyte works is a guideline, it may not be long until there is someone in place to help new manager Ally McCoist set up deals for players and oversee arrangements for the Champions League qualifiers.

    Whyte in Glasgow yesterday to start the shake up at Ibrox, and events served to confirm what I predicted here as he arrived, that the new owner, named as Rangers managing director. will be a hands-on presence.

    And the way my revelation was quickly confirmed has whetted the appeitite of Rangers supporters for more info from inside Ibrox.

    I can feed that appetite by revealing that Whyte is extremely concerned about the way Rangers have sat back and allowed the club’s brand image to be tarnished.

    He wants that stopped, and intends to appoint an Alastair Campbell-style spin doctor to turn things around.

    Whyte is believed to be canvassing opinion on this appointment in business, media, legal and political circles in Scotland and England as he launches his nationwide search to unearth the best man for the job.

    What he wants is someone with impeccable political contacts in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, plus an inside knowledge of who’s who and what’s what among the movers and shakers in Scottish football.

    Whyte has launched his hunt for someone who knows not merely the football writing fraternity. He wants a figure who carries a wider authority, and who also knows the buttons to press to keep newsdesks and political hacks, plus broadcasters, in line.

    For years Rangers fans have looked on in dismay as Celtic have been allowed to dictate the media agenda, with the shadowy figure of Alex Barr doing the Parkhead club’s bidding as a consultant.

    In fact, such was Barr’s power, that there was even a period during which he acted as a consultant for both Celtic AND the Scottish Football Association at the same time.

    This dreadful situation, and clear conflict of interest, only ended when I exposed it, and Barr’s contract with an embarrassed SFA was ended.

    That shocking fact reveals just how far behind Celtic, Rangers have fallen in the image stakes. In fact, Rangers have been lapped by Celtic during an era when Sir David Murray shackled the many people inside Ibrox who wanted to fight back.

    Now Whyte is planning a spirited fightback, and that means he now knows he will have to employ a full time big hitter of a spin doctor as an executive director and and him full powers.

    It is an appointment that is now near the top of Craig Whyte’s crowded agenda, as he launches his blueprint for Rangers’ future.

    posted by leggoland @ 01:17 17 Comments
    Is this how Whytey intends to let the masses know of his plans, through a hack that can’t get a job on a national.
    Also love the bit about Barr. They dont do irony do they, Peat, Dallas, Ogilvie, Broadfoot need i go on!!!!!!

  8. Ciarans Dad says:

    as discussed on here a few times it would make no sense for rangers to be debt free as he leaves himself open financially when they lose the tax case.

  9. Boab says:

    “Debt Free” could mean the only people Rangers owe money to are the people who own Rangers. If that makes sense.

    Like I have said, I think Rangers are in a better position if they owe the money to Whyte just now. Only if it is secured loans though. Which is exactly why Whyte bought the debt, rather than paying it off. Buying the debt brought the security with it.

  10. Adam says:

    Number 7 – I cannot imagine a situation whereby Lloyds allowed an £18m debt from a company, whom through their Parent Group, they held influence on, to move to a company with a)no track record and b) no control over.

  11. Adam says:

    Guys, im not sure if its at the point where we are debating the same points here.

    To make my position clear.

    1) I believe Lloyds have their £18m and are out the picture.
    2) I believe Wavetower(subsequently Rangers Group plc) have raised that £18m through a third party
    3) I believe that money has to be paid back.
    4) I believe that ultimately Whyte will fix it that Rangers FC plc pay it back, be it now, after the tax case, or at another defined point in our future.

    I am not one of the Gers fans who believes we are debt free and I am not one of the fans who thinks everything is fine and dandy now Lloyds have gone. And that is irrespective of the outcome of the tax case incidentally, as that will only worsen matters imo.

  12. tomtom says:

    Adam, am I missing something here. Whyte rode into town and claimed that he would rid Rangers of their debt and provide £25m for transfers. Now he is appointing advisors who specialise in flotations but you still don’t see any problems with this. Any share issue would dilute his shareholding (unless he creates a different class of share ie: RFC2).

    Why are Rangers fans not screaming from the rooftops about being duped. Even if Whyte is acting honourably he is still not carrying out his promise. Do you honestly believe that if Whyte had said 3 months ago “I’m going to buy the club but at the end of the day I want you guys to pay for it” the fans would have went along with it. Not a chance in hell.

    At least Fergus told the truth from day one.

  13. Adam says:

    Its all in the timing i guess. Statement just released by Craig Whyte:

    “I believe most Rangers supporters understand that, as a result of the takeover, the Club’s debt to the Lloyds Banking Group has been cleared and I have repeatedly stated to the Board my intentions to invest in the team”

  14. Adam says:

    Yeah you are CLEARLY missing all my replies tomtom and reading what you want to read. Do me a favour and read every one of my posts on this and a few other blogs, then come back and tell me if you still think I DONT SEE A PROBLEM WITH WHYTE.

    Jeez Louise. 🙂

    Is it just me or could i have not put my nervousness any more clearer on here. lol

  15. Boab says:

    Right, I think I see a cross wires here. Maybe I’m wrong, but if not;

    The debt Rangers had to Lloyds was not moved to Wavetower in such a way that Wavetower owed the money to Lloyds rather than Rangers owing it.

    The debt Rangers had to Lloyds was “bought” by Wavetower, so that Rangers then owed the money to Wavetower, rather than Lloyds. Wavetower paid Lloyds to buy the debt so no-one owes the money to Lloyds now. They are, as Adam said, out of the picture.

    So Wavetower were out of pocket by £18m (no-one knows where they got that) but were owed £18m by Rangers (most importantly this is secured against Rangers’ assets).

    It is my opinion that Wavetower (or their new name) will keep it that way, at least for a period, to secure their investment.

  16. Jason says:

    Good Morning

    I am a Rangers fan and I was fully expecting heads to roll following this takeover.

    It is not something that is worrying me at this stage, however I would like to know what Craig Whyte plans for Rangers Football Club moving forward.

    He has stated he will invest in the team and i will give him time to act on that.

    I understand that Celtic fans are “hurting” after failing to win the title for the 3rd year running, but what is typed on this website is 100% speculative with NO solid factual information.

    Yes, Rangers are under new ownership. Yes, Rangers have a tax case to fight. Yes, Phillip Betts is a asset finance specialist – this does not mean we will lose the taxcase, nor does it mean that the new owners do not have the best interests of the club at heart.

    We can speculate that Rangers will lose the case, but even the author of this website cant provide a definative answer to that. Rangers were in a serious financial mess, of course we need someone like Betts to re-structure the clubs assets, it doesnt necessarily mean he has been brought on board to deal with any liability Rangers face from HMRC.

    I think that we should be patient and wait and see what happens rather than speculating on outcomes that are not decided yet. If anyone buys a business and the current board object to you, of course you will get rid of them asap.

    The one compelling argument for Whyte here is – why would he want to put his name in lights as the man who ruined Rangers?

    That is something that nobody in their right mind would want. He would be the most hated man in Scotland and I for one do not think he is that stupid.

    I am not getting excited or concerned with the recent changes, I will reserve judgement until after the summer when we will see if he has invested in the club. As a football fan that is the most important thing for me. I think all Celtic fans on here should look at your own clubs investment in the team, the net spend is very minimal by Celtic and that is going on 4 years since CL football, this must be making life tough for Celtic financially. Also you still couldnt get the better of an ageing, ravaged Rangers team, I would be asking serious questions of my own club if i was Celtic minded!

    We shall see how this story unfolds, I for one believe that Rangesr will invest, hopefully we can get some new players, clarify what the strategy is and continue to dominate the SPL for years to come..

  17. George Dallas Peat says:


    that’s another woolly statement

    What he believes is irrelevant, What the Rangers support believe is even more irrelevant

  18. Adam says:

    Im not sure you are right about the debt being secured against Rangers assets.

    Can you explain how this could come about Boab as obviously Wavetower would have had to raise that money prior to buying Rangers and would therefore not have the right to secure any assets over it. To use the assets Post Purchase, Wavetower would need the authority of Rangers FC plc Board, which I very much doubt would have been given, otherwise we would have heard about it.

    Can you give me any scenario at all whereby wavetower could have got this loan using say Ibrox as security.

  19. Gary says:

    How would the person who knows whats going on be irrelevant?

  20. Adam says:

    Its relevant to Number 7’s question though, hence the position of my reply.

    In summary, Lloyds are out of the picture.

  21. Paul Mac says:

    He is correct the debt to Loyds has be cleared…..and now sits in a holding company…

    Note he did not state debt free..

    A carefully worded statement that states teh obvious..the money is no longer owed to Lloyds…but to him!

  22. George Dallas Peat says:


    Is it not a concern to the Rangers support in general that Craig Whyte has to wrap his statements in such woolly language at a time when clarity is needed ?

  23. Boab says:

    They don’t need security to get the loan if it is from a “friendly investor”, rather than an institution. They could quite easily have gotten the £18m prior to spending the £1 used to buy the shares.

    These are clearly not normal transactions, and to consider it to be analogous to say a leveraged buy out is not reasonable in my view. So long as the “friendly investor”, who may well control the nominee who holds the one share in “Wavetower” is happy that his investment is secured then pas de problem.

    If you want to now argue that any outstanding debt is not secured against Rangers assets then fair do’s, I can live with that as a scenario.

  24. peter lamb says:

    adam surely securing the loan with ibrox/murray park is just what the glaziers have done at man utd
    or the other yanks at liverpool?
    its not that out of the realms of possibilities!!

  25. ramsay smith says:

    With all the stuff in the press about super injunctions and privacy laws and justice being done in secret why is no one asking why this tribunal has been held in private?

    From what I can see from this list of decisions of First Tier Tribunals, they are invariably held in public, no matter how sensitive the material or embarrassing public disclosure is to those involved.


    Just how weak and corrupt is the Scottish media?

  26. Adam says:

    Yeah, but the Glaziers done it after the fact Peter. Boab is talking about the here and now. It is my belief if you have read all my comments that we will end up in a Glazier type position, once Whyte has all his guys on board.

  27. Adam says:

    It would probably help if you did a search on my name on this blog GDP and read my earlier replies on what the varying degrees of the Rangers support think.

    I think a lot of my replies are not getting read as the posts do not run in chronological order.

  28. Boab says:

    It is the tribunal who will decide whether it is held in private I would have thought.

    So, short of knowing why they agreed to it, it’s difficult to comment. And knowing why they agreed to it would kind of defeat the purpose.

  29. Paul Mac says:


    Simply put you can acquire a commitment for the cash to be provided on the basis you acquire ownership of the shares..thus ownership of the club and its assets…the cash from city investors would then be released…at that point the high risk ROI would kick in with its high rate return.

    That I imagine would be a very good reason why the press have been told not to ask who invested the cash…and explain why Craig has avoided discussing where the cash came from..

  30. Paul Mac says:

    Dont forget…Craig paid less than a loaf of bread for the club. His risk is £1..

    Unless he clearly states it was his cash he used?

    One must really ask….what is there to hide?

  31. Boab says:

    Yup, it is my impression that they got the finance, and bought the debt from Lloyds.

    Rangers now owe the money to Wavetower. Wavetower hold the securities against the assets.

    If that is wrong, then it is wrong, but Adam is right. That is what I currently believe to be the case. I believe it gives Wavetower, their investors, and Rangers the best security (pardon the pun) in their current position.

  32. Boab says:

    That would be fine if it were not for the 10,000 chimp.

    Just owning the shares is not enough to secure the investment in my view. Holding security over the properties, as a secured creditor, is also important. Just in case of administration / liquidation.

    That might not normally be the case but it is here. Even if that situation only lasts for a few months.

  33. Adam says:

    But that is a completely different scenario from “securing a loan using an asset” which was all i was pointing out.

    Again though, i think we are going round in circles as posts are not being read due to where they appear.

    Lloyds are gone. Wavetower may (probably) have a debt. If Rangers have to pay a penny of that back (and it is my view we will) then Whyte is a scamster and should be thoroughly ashamed of himself(dont think that will bother him)

  34. ramsay smith says:

    The press can, and south of the border, do challenge such decisions.

  35. manila says:

    no reply box …

    Adam says:
    25/05/2011 at 9:34 am

    Im pretty sure Lloyds have received the £18m taking them out of the picture. As to the question of “Do Rangers now owe The Rangers Group plc that £18m?” I think only Whyte and his team know the answer to that at this present stage.

    I would agree with your first statement that LBG have got their 18M. Regarding the second statement, technically you may be correct as no-one will really know the details of any financial wormholes that the 18M may already have passed through. Mr. Whyte, using multiple company identities … never!

    However, let’s not allow the Delusional Loyal, further encouraged today by Tom English’s latest attempt to attempt to sit at the master’s table, to continue the misapprehension that the club is debt free. That debt exists.

    From the “Statement by the Independent Board of The Rangers Football Club plc 6 May 2011” …

    Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the Club for £1 and the Club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower.

    Oh aye, sorry … it’s getting waived. LOLZ

    The amount of blinkered hope in the majority of posts I read regarding the debt situation on FollowFollow is staggering. Mibbes the same could be said of numerous Celtic sites, wishing for an alternative conclusion. But there’s a little more to it than that. Take KDS for example, the level of detail and balanced discussion vis-a-vis Rangers out strips anything I have yet to read on any Rangers site. [shameless] And of course my own little board: The Sporting Wing http://thewing.proboards.com/index.cgi .. all we expect is wit and intelleckchooalizm [/shameless]

    It used to be ostriches that were castigated for burying their head in the sand. This premise may need revising, as It appears that that behavioural anomaly is actually carried out by bears.

    “Debt-free at last; debt-free at last; thank God Almighty we are debt-free at last.” … erm … eh … no, actually

  36. peter lamb says:

    sorry adam but thats wrong glaizer attained loans to buy the shares of other share holders by securing them against the value of the club not a loan secured after buying the club!!
    quote from wiki- glazer ownership of man utd-
    “However, the majority of the cash used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, much of which were secured against the club’s assets”

  37. ramsay smith says:

    If LBG have assigned their standard security to Wavetree then the assignation will be registered in the Land Register, which is public.

    Likewise if Rangers plc grant a fresh standard security in favour of Wavetree.

  38. Torquemada says:

    There is turmoil at Ibrox. Directors being sacked, executives being suspended, disputes in the media between Jingle Jackson giving the two sacked directors a voice in the Record, and the embarrassing Tom English abusing his position in the Scotsman to cast extremely personal aspersions on Alistair Johnston in a quite outrageous (and to this Tim, at least, thoroughly undeserved) calumny.

    In the midst of this, Craig Whyte makes a statement to allay the fears of Rangers fans as to what is happening. He has the opportunity to state, clearly and unambiguously, that Rangers, since the takeover, are now debt-free. He chooses not to. He has the opportunity to state, clearly and unambiguously, what his plans are for the club. He chooses not to. Instead, he wraps up optimistic-sounding platitude after platitude in the densest woolly verbiage that can be read in any number of ways.

    Sensible people will ask themselves why.

    When Fergus took over Celtic, he stated, clearly and unambiguously, what his plans were for the club — and proceeded to carry out every promise. Not Wee Craigy, the Motherwell/Rangers/Celtic fan, the Motherwell-born billionaire/millionaire/wealthy businessman/shyster.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see. You are right to be concerned, Adam. We on the other side of the house are right to be thrilled!

  39. Boab says:

    Has Craig Whyte made this statement through Rangers’ own media outlets again.

    I know he has put stuff on Rangers TV and on the official website. Has he done anything in the mainstream media.

  40. Gwared says:

    I agree it is absolutley essential that Whyte holds the security, but I think I read somewhere that he has 21 days to register the security. This means he can pay the debt off with the borrowed money and transfer the existing security from LBG to himself therfore becoming a prefered creditor in front of HMCR.

  41. murphio says:

    Adam why do you believe Whyte is a scamster if he simply takes his money back at some point? He is perfectly entitled to recoup his investment. Or even make a profit on it. That is business. When are Rangers fans going to wake up to the fact that the world doesnt owe them a free lunch? It may well be that Whyte is a scamster but it wont be on the basis of whether he wants his own money back. It will be if he lets the club slide into oblivion and begins to pick at the carcus.

  42. manila says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. 😥

    LooseCannonCSC 😎

  43. Mark says:

    Adam, I admire the defense of your club and to do so on here is refreshing even if I think you are slightly deluded. It’s good to see the other side and “discuss”.
    I apologise for any attck I may have perpetrated yesterday I was not trying to say one thing or another about your opinion you are welcome to your as you are about mine, fair do’s. Blue tinted or green tinted we all hope for the best regarding our respective clubs, and maybe a little craw eaten by the other when they get it wrong.

    I refer to my “deluded” remark, you can call my understanding of his tax case as “half baked”, “deluded”, whatever you like, so work away.

    You do state the you don’t really trust Whyte and think the clun is still in financial trouble. Good, the shock of what appears to be on it’s way will be lessened for you.

    On the other hand if it all works out and rangers are tax safe I will drop a nugget of poop into my pants if that becomes reality of you can be sure.

    You have to be having serious serious doubts about;
    1. Anything Whyte utters
    2.Wavetower/rangers trust group thingy
    3. Where the 18 million came from if anywhere
    4. What does Ellis want?

  44. Adam says:

    Would probably have been better if you let me answer before generalising, incorrectly.

    I have no issues with any investor wanting his money back if that intention is laid clear at the beginning. Whyte has not done that. He has stated that he has invested to make the club debt free with promise of further investment in the team for the future.

    I absolutely dont mind him taking his “profit share” when applicable. I absolutely dont mind him keeping his £18 m or MORE if he sells the club in the future.

    I will have a problem if after saying the club is “debt free” that i find out we owe Rangers Group plc £18m and are paying any form of interest on it.

    Far from the picture you painted in your generalisation murphio.

  45. Adam says:

    Im kind of lost for words here. In what way have I been “defending my club” Mark ? Any sane person reading ALL of my posts would see I am quite far removed from “defending my club”

    I have done nothing else but raise my concerns over Craig Whyte , question a number of theories in a non aggressive/defensive manner to incite debate or alternative opinions, and paint a picture that im not too optimistic about where my club will be, with or without the tax case.

    Having read a number of questions/comments directed at me, its as if people know im a Rangers fan so take the default position that im disagreeing with them yet in a number of cases, my opinion on things isnt far removed from theirs.

    Thankfully though, for every Celtic poster on here who just doesnt get me, there appears to be 2 or 3 who do.

    As for the last 4 questions and me having my doubts about all 4……….well eh……..yeah. I mean i have been saying that every day since i started posting on here, but thanks for summarising my doubts again. lol

  46. Mark says:

    you haven’t been defending your club? oooooookaaaaayyyy then

  47. ramsay smith says:

    In case it may have escaped anyone’s attention, a report on Paul Baxendale Walker’s recent attempt to restore his professional reputation.


  48. Adam says:

    On what subject have i been defending them exactly ?

  49. Ciarans Dad says:

    I think there is a 5th question and the one that probably gives rise to the majority on here that all is not right.
    You have a club that made good profits recently (lets forget the gorilla for the moment) has just won the league and could go on another good run in Europe, has relatively low debt and a strong fan base. So why would minty sell for a £1 plus transfer of the debt. I think this alone makes the whole thing dodgy, just doesn’t make any sense unless you know that gorilla is about to tear u a new one.

    Just my thoughts, but please dont take any of this personally, i can see your not closed of mind to Whyte and that is refreshing.

%d bloggers like this: