The deceptive Craig Whyte

“Deceptive”:  adjective   Giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading.

Whyte has released a statement on the official Rangers website dismissing the calls for “vigilance” from outgoing directors as just sour grapes from men replaced for resisting change.  His statement includes the following:
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.”
This statement is nothing short of a clear attempt to mislead Rangers supporters.  It is a craftily worded statement (Hay McKerron must be exhausted) that amounts to an attempt to deceive his paying customers.  Craig Whyte does not say that Rangers FC’s debt has been reduced.  He did not say this because he cannot say this.  He cannot say this because it is not true.  As this blog has stated several times, the debt that Rangers owed Lloyds banking Group was purchased by Whyte’s Wavetower company (as it was then named) in a transaction that did not involve Rangers.  The purchase of MIH’s shares in Rangers FC by Whyte’s firm for a single pound was a separate transaction.  So Rangers do not owe Lloyds this money any more, but they owe the same amount to someone else: Whyte’s company.
Prove me wrong, Mr. Whyte.  Make a fool of me.  Discredit this blog by revealing the structure of Rangers’ debt today.  It is a plc and it does have 26,000 other shareholders who have a right to know the amount of indebtedness of the company they co-own with you.
The truth is that Rangers’ debt is about £28m (including negative working capital).  The takeover did not change Rangers debt, but Whyte is trying to imply otherwise.  Whyte is shaping up to make Sir David Murray look like a model of transparency and straight-talking.
Rangers supporters and journalists should note what Whyte did not mention.  Whyte ignored the “circular” that he is alleged to have promised to the Independent Board Committee (a sub-committee of the old Rangers board that reviewed the takeover proposal).  Alastair Johnston says that this was originally promised to be released on 16 May, but is now scheduled for 6 June.  This “circular” is supposed to reveal the how Whyte plans to fund Rangers going forward (the £25m investment promised).  Perhaps Whyte is just practicing ‘dignified silence’ on this subject?  Perhaps this is simply a subject that he does not want to discuss publicly in advance of a result in the tax case?

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.

578 Responses to The deceptive Craig Whyte

  1. ramsay smith says:

    There’s the small matter of needing a registration with the SFA/SPL to play in the league.

    And signing/ re-signing players.

  2. paul smith says:

    We will just have to disagree on this matter, Boab and RTC. We have the rule of law in this country – and it is still the UK btw – and not rule by state employees.

    No doubt the police think everyone they arrest is guilty, but that is what we have juries for. The police can’t arrest, try and convict

    So HMRC think EBTs are taxable. Well, it is not up to them to decide but the courts, and they have lost twice on this matter

    However, and this is just one of the areas where RTC’s work is so fantastically informative, there does on the face of it appear to be strong evidence that Rangers were not using them as the law allowed

    I think it is a matter of semantics, but if you follow the advice of a tax specialist, this sems to me to be legitimate avoidance. If you bend the rules, I would say it gets close to evasion. Google has just ‘avoided’ paying corporation tax on most of its UK profits. The profitable media group which publishes the Guardian ‘avoids’ paying corporation tax at all. Is this illegal? No. You or I may disagree with what they are doing, but it seems perfectly legitimate.

    Is this ‘tax management’ or ‘tax avoidance’. For all we know, there are teams in HMRC preparing challenges to the strategies of Google and the Guardian, but it wouldn’t make them illegal even if there were.

  3. tomtom says:

    EBT’s are not illegal, neither is driving at 70mph. Now driving at 70mph in a 30mph zone is illegal, and so is using EBT’s as a way of guaranteeing employee’s that they can avoid paying the correct level of taxation.

  4. Adam says:

    It concerns me it’s been held at all. Publicly or privately makes no odds to me.

  5. Boab says:

    Right in there you used the word “evasion” totally out of context. The words “avoidance” and “evasion” do not take their normal English meaning when dealing with these matters, which is part of the problem here. Tax evasion has a very specific meaning and it relates to criminal offences. In normal useage you could take avoidance and evasion almost as synonyms (not quite but almost). However in law they are very different things.

    You also say “So HMRC think EBTs are taxable. Well, it is not up to them to decide but the courts”. No-one said that EBTs were taxable, that makes no sense. What HMRC have said, what I have said, is that EBTs were not an appropriate vehicle for dealing with payments to professional footballers, where they are being paid for a contractual obligation, rather than receiving discretionary loans. EBTs, if appropriate to the circumstances, and dealt with properly result in payment which do not generate a tax liability. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the were appropriate to the circumstances, and administered properly. I believe that the former precludes the latter. How many football players would not have a deal in place where they knew what they were getting, and would rely on the good offices of a trust paying them some amount, as a loan, at the trust’s discretion. With the player and his agent having no control over, or even say in the matter. Aye right.

    With regard to taking advice from professional advisors. That is a matter for the tax payer. However if the advice is wrong, or wrongly administered then it is the tax-payer who is due to pay it back, not the adviser. Yes they can then sue the adviser, that however has nothing to do with HMRC or the tax bill. If Ranger lose their appeal, and have a tax bill then they can seek out the adviser, hope he is still in business, sue him, and hope he has some form of insurance. Fair do’s, if it happens good luck with that.

    You can continue to hope that Rangers will not have a tax bill, or that their lawyer is good enough to cast sufficient doubt in the minds of the panel. However that does not change the basic elements of what has been said here. If Rangers used EBTs, and if those were to pay people for services rendered, then on the face of it there is a tax bill due.

    One last thing, with regard to the rule of law. HMRC do not make up these laws, Parliament does. HMRC just administers them. If there are areas of doubt, raised by either a tax payer or HMRC then a tribunal, or a Court makes a judgement on who is right. If things run contrary to Parliaments intention, or a new Government decides to change the way things work then they amend the law, or replace it. The rule of law is just fine.

  6. Boab says:

    The chances are they won’t need to.

    If we accept that Rangers still owe The Rangers FC Group Ltd £18m (and a lot of people say that is not so, Craig Whyte has certainly led the support down the path of thinking that Rangers are debt free) then the likelihood is that the HMRC bill (tax plus interest) will be higher than that. The penalties in those circumstances won’t really matter with regard to who has the effective say in any administration.

    With over half of the votes (it goes by debt levels, not one man one vote) then HMRC will really just make agrements with the administrator.

    personally I still do not see Rangers going into administration, far less being liquidated, but that is only an opinion.

  7. Boab says:

    We won’t even be “informed” whether Rangers were succesful in their appeal or not, as the hearing is apparently being held anonymously. It may very well get out, and events may make it pretty obvious. However as far as I am aware it will not actuall go into the public domain (officially).

    I think details of which employees received what payments are therefore highly unlikely. Though a fair bit of “informed speculation” may be available. Both in the case of Rangers themselves, and those who benefited from stealing my money.

  8. paul smith says:

    Don’t disagree there, Boab. I don’t pretend to understand the full subtleties of EBTs, but if it can be shown that Rangers were using them to make contractual wage payments, then there will be a tax bill, no doubt about it.

    RTC won’t be drawn on this, but HMRC are also seeking the maximum penalty in addition to the regular tax (plus interest) which they think is due. This must be because they think that in some way or other there has also been some serious maladministration.

    I agree it does not look good for Rangers, unlike a lot of people I don’t discount at all what is said on this site , it seems pretty reliable and authoritative.

  9. Boab says:

    Another wee area of confusion here I think. As I understand it HMRC do not “seek” a penalty, any more than they “seek” to establish the amount of tax due. HMRC calculate the tax due and issue a bill. They also decide on the level of the penalty and impose that.

    Once again, it would not be HMRC taking Rangers to a tribunal to try to achieve a penalty. It would be Rangers taking HMRC to a tribunal to have the penalty reduced, arguing that it was too harsh.These tribunals are not HMRC trying to win anything or get any penalty, they have already decided on that. It is Rangers trying to minimise the damage, hopefully down to zero.

    Just my understanding.

  10. Boab says:

    There is an argument, and a strong one, that Celtic’s overly “cautious” policies have led to us losing tens of millions of pounds over the last few seasons. I tend to agree with that argument, however do not see it as being as clear cut as a few of the supporters, quite a few actually.

    The argument goes that, a few January’s ago if we had bought a striker (most people quote Fletcher), that we would have won the SPL that year, gotten into the Champions League and gone from strength to strength. At the same time, because of no CL money Rangers would have gotten weaker and weaker, perhaps even folded.

    It is a decent argument and may well be true. However buying in a new player, a good player, a goalscorer, guarantees nothing. Certainly not winning the title from a determined and well organised Rangers side. We brought in Keane the following January, he score a load of goals, Rangers won the league. We brought in Commons the following season, he scoread and made a load of goals, Rangers won the league.

    All of that being said, and accepting that there are no guarantees. I think not bringing in a striker, when it was so clear we needed one, was a shocking decision. One which we have probably suffered fo ever since.

    Anway, sorry for wandering off topic, it just seemed relevant to your last.

  11. Boab says:

    Who owns Wavetower / Rangers FC Group Ltd though.

  12. George Dallas Peat says:


    you have to back 6 months and dwell on a few things.

    How close Celtic won in GS 3rd year

    The promises made by DD on the pitch at Tannadice

    How Rangers reacted to that (Kaunus splurge circa 18m ???)

    We got Crosas, Loovens and Maloney (None of whom Strachan wanted)

    That Strachan had already quit 3 weeks before the January transfer window having just beaten Rangers at Ibrox.

    The very late recruitment of Tony Mowbary

    My paranoia or perceptiveness as it has become known these last two years screams old firm preservation society at me.

  13. Auldheid says:

    The nature of football as a business is that it is NEVER good business to put your main rivals out of business. This is what makes football an interdependent business unlike normal business.

    This means at a strategical level which always looks ahead, Rangers future must have been of some concern to Celtic. I’m not saying it was a governing factor but it had to be a consideration.

    It certainly has been to the rest of Scottish football since.

    Apart from that GS was satisfied his squad had what was required but I think everyone under estimated the survival factor that was driving Rangers and those dependent on their survival.

  14. George Dallas Peat says:

    The nature of football is a sport first and foremost. If you deviate from that then you are not a Celtic supporter first and foremost.

  15. evinguu says:

    Boab, you made a point about who owned wavetower/rangers fc group ltd. well from the ltc message about mr whytes shopping in poundland for rfc, i saw that they were wholly owned by Liberty Capital. I asked a question on here about them as their website has been down, so i will ask again doesn anyone know who or what these people do ? i know Craig Whyte owns them but they have a net prescence of zero!

  16. evinguu says:

    ok i tried posting something but it didnt seem to work.


    You posted a comment about who owns Wavetower / rangers group… i saw on the LTC notice about mr whytes shopping in poundland for RFC that wavetower was wholly owned by Liberty Capital which was ultimatley owned by Craig Whyte. Im sure RTC and others have mentioned this lot before. II cannot find out any info on them, their website is down and cannot find any other info out about them, does anyone else have any info??

  17. evinguu says:

    oops it did work hehe silly mee 🙂

  18. tonybananas says:

    “paul smith30/05/2011 at 11:09 am
    I don’t pretend to understand the full subtleties of EBTs, but if it can be shown that Rangers were using them to make contractual wage payments, then there will be a tax bill, no doubt about it.”

    Boab made a good post a few weeks ago that punched through the “subtleties” of EBT use. To paraphrase it was along the lines of…..

    Ronald De Boer’s agent says “Here Ron, I’ve negotiated this great deal where the Gers will pay two million quid a year into a fund and then at some unspecified point in the future, the trustees of this fund might decide to pay you some or all of this money totally at their own discretion, or maybe they’ll decide not to. But I’m sure they will….. what’s that?…. No I’m afraid they can’t provide any written guarantees but don’t let that bother you”

    Ronald De Boer “Aye sounds like a magic deal, sign me up immediately. I’m rich enough as it is anyway to not bother if they don’t pay me”

    To me and my layman understanding, Rangers have to find a way of making the above not just sound plausible, but probable, this is what they are up against.

    We can dance around smoke, mirrors and obfuscation, around “evasion”, “avoidance” or “management” but this is the issue at the heart of the matter for which Rangers and Thornhill will have to come up with something which explains away the implausibility that highly remunerated international football players would accept an agreement with no written guarantees that they would be paid anything.

    I think even Alan ‘you’ll have to crow bar me out the door and down to Tottenham’ Hutton would baulk at such a proposition.

  19. Boab says:

    That is to suggest that the Celtic Board deliberately made decisions which they thought were in the best interests of their opposaition, rather than in their own club’s best interests.

    Personally I think was more to do with parsimony and arrogance. They simply thought we are already good enough to win the SPL, so why spend money we don’t need to.

    Occum’s Razor for me every time. The simplest solution is normally the correct one. They let the fans down in an attempt to save money, and in the arrogant belief the team would walk the league anyway.

  20. Adam says:

    Spot on Boab.

  21. Boab says:

    I was under the impression that the shares in Wavetower / Rangers FC Group Ltd (same business) were owned by Jordan Nominees (Scotland) Ltd. I think it was stated on here. If that is the case, then until you know who the beneficial owner is (the person the nominee is acting on behalf of) then you don’t really know who owns Wavetower / Rangers FC Group Ltd, and as such who owns Rangers PLC.

    Now if Wavetower / Rangers FC Group Ltd is wholly owned by Liberty Capital, which in turn is owned by Craig Whyte, then that is another story. In the same way that Sir David Murray was the owner of Rangers because whe was the “owner” of MIH, then Craig Whyte is now the new owner, for similar reasons.

    As far as I can see whoever owns Wavetower / Rangers FC Group Ltd is the de facto owner of Rangers. It just depends who that people / those people are. I believe there is some doubt at this stage, there are certainly conflicting stories. It could even be that Jordans own the shares in Wavetower / Rangers FC Group Ltd , however they are acting for Liberty Capital, which would have the same net effect.

  22. tomtom says:

    C’mon Boab you’ve just destroyed the conspiracy theorists out there. The fact that you are 100% correct doesn’t give you the right to say things like this. You’ll be telling us next that we lost the league in 2010 & 2011 because Rangers had a better manager and a greater desire. Really what are you like.

  23. DavyLaw says:

    Time for a fresh blog, methinks.

  24. evinguu says:

    Ok it wasnt on the LSE (not LTC that i stated before, god knows where i got that!!) that i saw it just looked again, i have it somewhere on my comp at home i think so will try get a link up to where i saw this snippet., but deffo saw somewhere that Wavetower/Rangers Group was wholly owned by Liberty Capital. Memory may be wrong but my attempts at finding out info about who owns rangers always lead me in circles and i always got back to Liberty Capital. Obviously i know a very little about all this maybe someone has more info…. or more reliable info for that matter. I just find it that they have companies within companies etc etc obviously trying to keep some things out of public view regarding the whole saga.

    As you say this other nominee could well be acting on behalf of Liberty Capital in order to keep their name out the papers ( not that they would investigate that far anyways) or as a smokescreen. I definatley think that whatever they are doing it involves hiding assets like Ibrox etc away from any vultures ( apart from themselves of course lol) should the HMRC bomb go off in its fullest.

    Another point i would like to make, think i had previously. I am of the opinion that with all possible scenarios surrounding the HMRC case and the takeover itself, it is possible that Craig Whyte is infact the best person for Rangers. If it goes tits up he can keep them going in one guise or another, and if not he can keep them operating without the oh so awful LLoyds Bank on the board. Either way he appeases the fans!! as easy as that can be sometimes for football fans of any side !!!

  25. Boab says:

    Feck, did I type that out loud.

    D’OH, schoolbhoy error.

  26. Boab says:

    Management, avoidance and evasion are really secondary issues as you suggest. They are however very important secondary issues.

    The facts of the case, the straightforward question, what promises were made to whom, what expectations did people have, what arrangements were made, will answer the question of whether or not the tax is due. Was the correct amount of tax paid at the correct time. If so then there will be interest as well. So as you suggest, avoidance and evasion aren’t really important here, simple mistakes could have been made. No avoidance scheme, no deliberate acts, simple mistakes. Though as you also suggest, what’s the chances of that well.

    Where avoidance and evasion come into it is what happens next. Worst case scenario, in the event of evasion people can end up in the jail. Tax evasion is a criminal offence, albeit it may be prosecuted under the common law in Scotland. That would be a matter for Crown Office to decide.

    As I have said elsewhere, I have yet to see any suggestion that any individual has been accused of tax evasion. It would be unlikely anyway I would have thought, as it is likely to be the body corporate which benefited rather than the individuals who acted on it’s behalf. Though you could argue that they benefited indirectly by keeping their job, or maybe even getting bonuses for “efficiency”.

  27. Auldheid says:

    Only if you think Rangers going under was in Celtic’s best long term interests which is why I mentioned looking at two things

    a) a strategic view.
    b) The interdependent nature of football

    From that perspective no one had to decide not to put Rangers out if business but perhaps the desire to do so was not as strong as amongst the support?

  28. Lord Wobbly says:

    Wait a minute. The author of that piece has just returned from a place with no internet access?!

    Charlie? Is that you?

    (see earlier in this blog)

  29. Adam says:

    Ive read a few of his articles. It appears that he is in the 5% of internet fans that im a member of. lol

  30. Lord Wobbly says:

    What are the chances that Mr Whyte has delayed the circular because he wants to understand the complete picture for committing pen to paper? If he truely does have Rangers at heart, maybe he really will take the opportunity to bring all of the skeletons out from wherever they’ve been hiding (those he inherited at least)? After all, if he continues to cover up pre-existing issues, he becomes complicit in them.

  31. tonybananas says:

    As ever Boab you’ve got the finger on the pulse. Evasion, avoidance, management etc. are not irrelevant but are not central to the question of how Rangers have operated in relation to EBTs.

    The ‘De Boer’ scenario is one for the benefit of those who have argued that this is a question of whether EBTs are legal or not/it’s a loophole Rangers have exploited/they acted on advice etc. etc.

    EBTs ARE legal but not as a means to fulfill contractual obligations such as a highly-paid footballer’s salary. Admittedly without any access to information on the case, I find it very difficult to see how Rangers could successfully argue that payments to players through an EBT were anything but contractual remuneration. Unless no evidence of having used EBTs for this purpose exists which I find doubtful through the hints that RTC has dropped (yes an opinion developed purely on trust in the context of everything RTC has said so far).

    It’s not a loophole as operating EBTs in this manner has never been legal.

    Acting on advice is another red herring as the central question is ‘do they owe the tax or not’? This has nothing to do with intentions, good or otherwise or what advice they took. If they are found to owe the tax, the £24million crystallises as a bill PLUS interest.

    I very much doubt I would be successful in arguing I don’t need to pay 25% of my council tax because I received advice that a single person is entitled to 25% discount. This is not to say these discounts do not exist but they are not applicable to me due to my circumstances i.e. tied to the ball and chain!

    This seems analagous with the Rangers case where some have argued that EBTs are not illegal and have pointed to other examples in case law, ignoring the basis of HOW the EBTs have been managed.

    When/if the bill crystallises we are in the ball park of penalties where intent, or lack of intent, to avoid tax becomes central.

  32. ramsay smith says:

    The Celtic Board are are a motley crew. There are only two things they have in common: their love of Celtic and an exceptional degree of success in whichever field they operate.

    ‘Tis odd indeed that their Midas touch deserts them when dealing with Celtic, is it not?

  33. Eeramacaroonbar says:

    It was not just Fletcher. Supossedly Celtic were after a guy called Hustzi from Hannover – an attacking midfielder. His team were prepared to sell at 2 million. Celtic offered 1 million. Hannover said no thanks, we want 2 million………….Celtic then offered 1.25 million. While this was going on , Zenit St Petersburg sold Arshavin to Arsenal, next thing Zenit bought Hustzi for 2 million.

    This happened again in January when Celtic refused to pay an extra 500k for Huseklepp – Bari then jumped in and bought him for 1.5 million.

    Some may say this is Celtic playing hardball and standing their ground, but personally I think when you are going for a title , you need to be prepared to go that little bit extra. Fair enough if they are wanting 2 and 3 million over what your valuation is at, but these deals were over pennies – especially when you think of the financial rewards they could have resulted in.

    Not for one minute suggesting Huseklepp would have won us the league this year ( personally I think a CB would have) or even Hustzi and Fletcher would have ( I always had grave doubts about Strachan signings), but lets be honest here in Strachan’s last season we only needed to score a goal in each of the last 2 games. Our strikers and midfielders that season had run out of ideas in the run in. Maybe an attacking midfielder and striker is exactly what we needed.

    I have no doubts by the way that if we had won the league in Strachan’s final season, that it would have started a chain of events at Ibrox that would have sent them spiralling to administration. The players they managed to keep in the following seasons would have been sold , with no replacements. Think about that for a second – no Davis , no McGregor, . None of the backbone they have won the last 3 titles with.

  34. droid says:

    Does anyone know whether the following could be applied in rfc’s case?

    a Personal Liability Notice (“PLN”) served on each Appellant under section 121C of the of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 which enables HMRC, in certain circumstances, to impose personal liability on directors of companies who fail to pay National Insurance Contributions.

    If so would it be the current directors or the previous ones?

    How much could this amount to?

    Does it point to the need for the skills backgound of Mr Betts et al?

  35. Chris D says:

    Boab – we came away from Ibrox with a 7 point gap.
    a £5m investment (while no guarantee of course) in the likes of Fletcher and 1 other, would have gave us a much better chance, we were basically reliant on McDonald cos VoH and Sammy were hopeless (the latter still is)

    The 2 real disappointments in the board I have in recent seasons are that particular January window and not signing James McCarthy for a mere £1.5m

  36. tomtom says:

    From that link:

    “The Insolvency Act 1986 gives the liquidator a number of powers to stop those who are abusing the system. These include allowing a liquidator to take recovery action where the failed company has entered into a sale at a lower than market value at a time when the company was unable to pay its debts. In addition, the Act makes it an offence for a director of a company which has gone into insolvent liquidation to be a director of a company with the same or a similar name, or concerned in its management, without leave of the court within 5 years after the winding up. A director who contravenes the Act may be made liable for the debts of the original company after he/she became director”

    Surely this prevents RFC2012 being run by the present board members? Could this be why Ellis (who owns 25% but is never mentioned) has not been appointed to the board – maybe he’s waiting in the wings.

  37. dirtymac says:

    We were several million up on transfers this past season.

  38. Random Username to enable private message says:

    Hi RTC. Absolutely facinating stuff on this blog. Can you give us an update as to how well viewed this site is and can I also strongly recomend that you add a facebook “LIKE” button to the site. As good as this blog is, there is a lot of people out there I talk to who haven’t even heard of it (or at least claim as much) and therefore dismiss it as the biased ramblings of a paranoid Celtic fan. Adding the “like” button will allow this site/blog to be seen everywhere and thus generate more interest/debate and get more and more people talking about it.

    It’s very simple. here is a link

  39. Duggie73 says:

    Thanks Burton.
    Assuming liquidation it still seems reasonable to suspect that the highest bid for Ibrox would be by a group whicfh wants to run a football club- becos of the listed front, and real estate in Govan not being especially valuable.
    OK- so Whyte and his currently public cronies couldn’t be the ones to run a GRFC, but I still think a sale to a different owner and a re-branding of “the Rangers” which eliminates all tax liabilities looks possible, and profitable.

  40. Duggie73 says:

    You wouldn’t imagine the spl would want to exclude a “rangers” side would you?
    The money lost by doing so means it wouldn’t be considered…

  41. Boab says:


    What makes you say that Andrew Ellis owns 25% of anything to do with Rangers.

    I know there was all sorts of talk and rumour, however has it actually happened.

  42. Goosy says:

    Its an interesting idea that somewhere in the bowels of Pakhead there is a dread that RFC may go under and cause Celtic a massive strategic headache
    Its even more interesting that with hindsight Celtic deliberately gambled on not winning the SPL under GS with the comfort that losing the title meant RFC were still in business thus perpetuating the Old Firm stranglehold on Scottish football
    Which raises yet another interesting point

    We have to assume that the Celtic Board are avidly following the RFC situ (and indeed this blog)

    So what is the REAL ideal scenario asfaras Celtic are concerned ?
    Surely they dont want an RFC so enfeebled that they cease mounting a challenge for the title
    Its one thing to have won “tainted titles ”
    Its quite another to win “meaningless titles ”
    Do Cetic want to dominate scottish football without any serious challenge from anywhere ?
    I certainly recall periods in the past when I and my mates opted not to go to a match because it would be “too easy”
    This was no good to Celtic or to the game

  43. Goosy says:

    We have to assume that the Celtic Board are avidly following the RFC situ (and indeed this blog)

    So what is the REAL ideal scenario asfaras Celtic are concerned ?
    Surely they dont want an RFC so enfeebled that they cease mounting a challenge for the title
    Its one thing to have won “tainted titles ”
    Its quite another to win “meaningless titles ”
    Do Cetic want to dominate scottish football without any serious challenge from anywhere ?
    I certainly recall periods in the past when I and my mates opted not to go to a match because it would be “too easy”
    This was no good to Celtic or to the game

  44. Duggie73 says:

    So a rebranding/relaunch of “Rangers” would mean at the very least the possibility of more revenue…

  45. grocer says:

    Just testing guys to see if I can post etc !

  46. Thegreenbhoy says:

    Piffle you talk a lot of nonsense the fact of the matter is Rangers have won titles based on financial doping Celtic have not argue that case and not another as I said at the beginning PIFFILE

  47. Thegreenbhoy says:


  48. Weefatbhoy says:

    Two “Offers” were rejected Evens (4m & 10m respectively)…………..

    Any offer to settle a pending liability CANNOT be deemed an “admittance of guilt”.

  49. grocer says:

    Driving at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone is fine when you know that no one is watching. But when you are spotted by the powers that be expect to suffer the consequences. 3 penalty points, £60 fine etc and a boot up the arse to which you deserve. I am sure some of us on here have experienced such a thing and have put our hands up and said: Fair enough, I have been caught out ! Hopefully the same result will come to RFC, or whatever they are called nowadays.

%d bloggers like this: