Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem


Following on from my previous post, I am enclosing a screen capture of Rangers cash flow projections for the current season.  It provides a numerical insight into the scale of the problem facing Craig Whyte’s Rangers.

Before we wade waist deep in numbers, I should explain that the data has been anonymised.  By this, I mean that all of the numbers have been adjusted slightly.  However, the net effect of the adjustments on the totals is negligible.  The original raw data  was much more granular and more easily verified.  At the request of the source, some values have been aggregated.

The first point to observe (for those who are unfamiliar with cash flow projections), is that this sheet starts with the 2010/2011 season ‘Actual’ cash flow values as a baseline.  The rest of the numbers represent increases or decreases in cash flow compared with the same period in the previous season.

Next, we should note that Mr. Whyte has some degree of flexibility over when bills are actually paid.  This means that this analysis has an accuracy of approximately of plus or minus one month.  Additionally,  there is currently no evidence of Craig Whyte having made good on the pledges made in the takeover documents to invest cash.  Therefore, I have not shown any investment in working capital from Rangers’ majority owner.

Without Whyte’s investment, the spreadsheet shows that Rangers could survive through the October pay period and hitting a brick wall by the end of November. However, this could also be interpreted as projecting Rangers filing for insolvency before the end of October.  (Rangers fans will be hoping that cash can be stretched out until the end of December when the opening of the transfer window would hold out hope of liquidating assets to extend the life of The Rangers Football Club plc.  I am told that this is highly unlikely.)  Values are in £ 000’s.

Of course, if Whyte has recently made good on his promises of working capital investment, Rangers can breathe for a while longer, but it would be unlikely to even cover the next month’s cash requirements.  To survive to February or March 2012 when the First Tier Tribunal can be expected to return with its findings in “The Big Tax Case”, Whyte would have to invest close to £15m to keep Rangers going.

So where is the investment from Whyte’s “Wavetower”?  (“Wavetower” is now more formally called The Rangers FC Group Ltd and Whyte claims that he owns it 100%).  The takeover documents do provide a watertight promise of investment.  If insolvency is inevitable, the smart move for Whyte is simply to pay off the obligation to a receiver rather than to Rangers prior to insolvency.  If Whyte opts for receivership (and if he defeats any legal challenges to his appointment of a receiver), he will get all of that payment back less expenses.  (As regular readers of this blog will know well, a receiver acts solely to recover the debt owed to the holder of a ‘floating charge’.  In buying Rangers’ debt to Lloyds, Whyte has acquired this legal privilege of priority repayment above everyone else except recipients of statutory payments.  Only once the secured creditors are paid in full would other creditors receive anything).  So, rather than seeing his money consumed by “old Rangers”, Whyte is able to keep his powder dry while satisfying his legal obligations too late to do the current company any good.  (Viewers of Mark Daly’s recent BBC Scotland documentary on Whyte’s business history will feel a sense of deja-vu).  Alternatively, Whyte might be more benevolent than many believe and he may choose to pour in cash until the tax tribunal returns a result.  That would indeed be a surprise.  This would take his investment in Rangers up to a figure of about £33m.  The prospect of a return on his investment would disappear at such a figure.  Basically, Rangers’ failure to qualify for the Champions’ League scuppered any sensible prospect that Rangers could survive to face down HMRC in “the big case”.  Only a substantial cash injection now will prevent insolvency in the coming weeks.

On the subject of return on investment, quite how Whyte plans to turn a profit on Rangers has mystified informed observers of all hues.  Noting that the bubble in Scottish football has long since collapsed and our game is fully decoupled from the continuing financial madness of the English Premier League, anyone making an investment in a Scottish club must value the business based upon the free cash flows (money available to be withdrawn by shareholders).  There are two major ways for Whyte to handle Rangers.  Either he liquidates assets and destroys the football club in the process or he runs the club as a going concern and tries to find a buyer (or pockets an annual dividend).  Whyte has had ample opportunity to liquidate Rangers and make a quick profit.  He has not done so.  We are now left with the going concern option.

Let us look at how Rangers would be valued as a going concern.  Sparing you the details of asset valuation theory, if an owner expected to withdraw £1 million for himself from a business each year, he might pay £10-12 million today.  (This is very reasonable for a high risk business in today’s low interest rate environment).  Leaving aside the idea that supporters would tolerate any owner withdrawing £1 million per year for himself, if the future sale value of The New Rangers as a going concern is at most £12 million (i.e. the most a rational buyer would pay), how does Whyte plan to turn a profit having paid £18 million for Rangers’ debt?

What sort of lender would give Whyte £18m for such a high-risk investment while expecting no more than £10-12 million in return?  No one else would touch Rangers.  What did Whyte see that no one else did?

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.

1,456 Responses to Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem

  1. curious onlooker says:

    I put forward the theory as a possibility but am not firmly convinced by it or indeed much surrounding the whole thing.

    Experience tells me that in this type of “complex educated guessing game” that no-one gets it spot-on.

  2. Johnobhoyo says:

    More sniff sniff allegations again Mark. Well done sir.

    As others have said, it wasn’t me who brought DD into the reckoning here, I was merely replying to another query.

    As for where I was yesterday at 3pm, unfortunately it was within the confines of Celtic Park just a day after the shysters that masquerade as our Board took their final instalment of this season’s SB money from my account. How ironic. And even though they’ve shafted me for another £69 for the second string rubbish that calls itself the Europa League, I’m not at all sure I can be ersed making the trek on Thursday night. However with a bit of luck it may be Lennon’s last game in charge so that could make it interesting.

    Anyhow, back to more important matters, I see some guy on KDS (he is more of a Rangers hater than Celtic supporter) actually managed to get a hearse to Ibrox today, took a photo outside the stadium and is patting himself on the back for such a stunt. Unfortunately things are so bad at Celtic these days that’s the only solace some are finding at the minute.

  3. Paulie Walnuts says:

    Duggie,

    I don’t have absolutely definitive info on who it is, but I’m pretty sure its not Lloyds.

    Yossery,

    Rangers FC Group Ltd (Wavetower as was) is indeed registered in England. It has issued and paid up share capital of £1, so it is indeed not worth a blow on a ragman’s trumpet. It owns 85% of the issued share capital of The Rangers Football Club plc. I agree it is highly likely that Wavetower will become insolvent, and it is highly likely that that insolvency will happen in England and be dealt with by the English courts under English law.

    But I don’t really see what difference it makes.Rangers will still be insolvent too. There will still have to be Scottish insolvency proceedings in respect of Rangers whether or not their parent company is separately insolvent. And the differences between the jurisdictions in this field are pretty small. The principal legislation (IA 1986) is UK wide.

    The liquidator of Wavetower can dispose of the 85% shareholding in Rangers (and thereby recover his £1), but he can’t make Rangers solvent.

    Call me cynical, but the combination of the improperly used commas and the deliberately cryptic post hinting at an angle that everyone else has missed is a familiar one on here. So give us the benefit of your clever theory in a properly reasoned post, or else take your crap elsewhere.

  4. Zimbabwe says:

    Hi, I’ve followed this site since it’s inception and I love the cut and thrust of people’s opinion as to the future of Glasgow Rangers. I’ve watched the ebb and flow of each contributors opinion, supposed insight, the people in the “know” and the psychic contributors who can foretell what will happen to RFC ( not the originator).
    I’m in the unique position of being in contact with the people who will actually be in the court at the FTT. Whilst there will be the usual “Aye Right” I’ve spoken to them and have heard their expectations of the outcome. Although a test case, which will of course initiate further action by HMRC against other teams if successful, the people I know are at this point,in time ,extremely confident of winning the case due to RFC’s running of the EBT, which has strict guidelines totally ignored by RFC. Happy to discuss my credentials

  5. duggie73 says:

    Adam
    the point is that the debt would in normal circumstances be cleared without Lloyds assigning the floating charge in its pre-2003 form. There’s universal agreement on here that Whyte made the re-assignment of the floating charge a specific condition as part of the take-over, it’s stretching credibility to the extremes to say that Lloyds were unaware as to why.

  6. Adam says:

    Ok, i might be getting a little confused here, but did Lloyds not release their floating charge, because they were no longer entitled to it ? The new assignee would not be their choice, surely ?

  7. duggie73 says:

    Adam
    I’ll join you in the confusion. I think it was agreed that the normal run of events would be that the old charge would no longer exist, and a new one would be created. Someone with greater experience of this than myself would be who to ask…

  8. TheBlackKnight says:

    Adam says:
    30/10/2011 at 5:08 pm
    “Ive never believed for a second that Lloyds, even in some sneaky roundabout way, have given Whyte £18m.”

    Why not? They are/ were creditors for a number of his companies that above above radar (Tixaway and Liberty to name two)

  9. TheBlackKnight says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    30/10/2011 at 5:14 pm

    Hugh! Genuinely laughed out loud! Nice one 🙂

  10. bobbyevans says:

    Could there be any truth in the rumour that RFC will offer HMRC £10m and that it will be accepted, allegedly because, if it’s not, HMRC will get nothing as RFC will enter administration by end of week ?( from Celtic Hub today).

  11. yossery says:

    What you think PW is irrelevant to me or the situation. If Whyte goes a route he has gone before Rangers are little more than an asset of the parent company domiciled and registered in England, that asset would be under the control of an English administrative receiver. The power of the floating charge gives Whyte the power to appoint the administrative receiver under English law.
    As I said Whyte is many things a fool is not one of them.

  12. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    duggie73 says:
    30/10/2011 at 6:17 pm
    Would it be possible for those who are firmly convinced by the mystery backer theory to post why the backer would be in a better position by putting money behind Whyte at the time of the takeover as opposed to saving any financial commitment until the time of RFC’s demise?
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Profit?

    cranking up the charges Wavetower /increasing rangers debt and then puling the plug will give the “backer” a return – which he could use to invest in new rangers – thus reducing his outlay/risk

    football clubs are expensive to run, so why not get some extra capital thrown into the pot – which oyu wouldn’t get if SDM/LTSB took the club to the wall

  13. TheBlackKnight says:

    yossery says:
    30/10/2011 at 7:03 pm
    “……. The power of the floating charge gives Whyte the power to appoint the administrative receiver under English law.”

    How does that work then? Please enlighten.

  14. Hugh McEwan says:

    duggie73 says:
    30/10/2011 at 6:31 pm

    Adam
    the point is that the debt would in normal circumstances be cleared without Lloyds assigning the floating charge in its pre-2003 form. There’s universal agreement on here that Whyte made the re-assignment of the floating charge a specific condition as part of the take-over, it’s stretching credibility to the extremes to say that Lloyds were unaware as to why.

    =============================================================

    If the deal was in those terms are you suggesting they shouldn’t have taken it. Not gotten their £18m and still had a creditor looking at insolvency with them probably losing all of their money.

    Why on earth would a business do that.

  15. Paulie Walnuts says:

    Yossery,

    Rangers will not be “under the control” of an English administrative receiver. On your hypothesis that administrative receiver will control a company which in turn controls 85% of the issued share capital of Rangers. He can appont directors and can carry a vote, but any resolution he proposes or votes for will have to be justificable in company law terms under reference to the interets of Rangers’ 27000 shareholders as a whole.

    Rangers will be and will remain insolvent. And that will lead to separate insolvency proceedings in respect of Ranegrs, and that regardless of the solvency or insolvency of its parent. And there is nothing- absolutely nothing – that any insolvency practitioner appointed to the parent can do to stop that.

    Or in laymans terms. If they are not put into (Scottish) administration or receivership, they will be wound up (by a Scottish court). End of.

  16. SB says:

    Hugh McEwan;
    Peter Lawwell is a died in the blood Celtic fan. Anyone who suggests otherwise is 100% wrong. I have a relative who went to school with him. He’s Celtic through to the bone.

  17. Adam says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    30/10/2011 at 7:22 pm

    If the deal was in those terms are you suggesting they shouldn’t have taken it. Not gotten their £18m and still had a creditor looking at insolvency with them probably losing all of their money.

    Why on earth would a business do that.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    We need to stop this agreeing patter Hugh. 🙂

    I reckon thats possibly 3 times in the last 24 hours. lol

  18. Interested Observer says:

    bobbyevans says:

    30/10/2011 at 6:58 pm

    I doubt it. Was it not the case that the old regime offered HMRC a deal to pay off the tax before the takeover took place? Anyway, the time for deals was long ago and not as the FTT is getting going.

    Also, HMRC are obliged to pursue 100% of all tax owed and accept not a penny less. That’s why they never agree to CVAs. I imagine that HMRC are well aware of the possibilities (administration etc) if they hit a business with a major bill.

    And if comment on here is to be believed, where would Rangers get the £10m to pay off the taxman in any case?

    Read an earlier link to Tom English’s piece. More claptrap. Again, a disappointment as he’s always been quite good to listen to on the radio. I also remember his Q+A with CW the day after the beeb ban (how’s that legal action coming on? I asked yesterday but couldn’t get an answer…). I thought it was a spoof until about halfway down the article!

    Easy to take pot-shots at the bloggers and hide behind ‘legal issues and the law’. Well, I’ve seen more investigative journalism on here regarding the Rangers FC issue than I’ve seen in any of the national press.

    I find it breathtaking that Rangers going into administration or being liquidated and started up as a NEWCO is being spoken about sporadically and in such a matter-of-fact way by journos and pundits (when they stumble across the issue). You’d think it wasn’t a big deal at all, really.

  19. Paulie Walnuts says:

    Re Lloyds,

    The assignation of the floating charge is not the big deal it is being made out to be. The reason for it is to give some protection to the incoming purchaser against an adverse result in the FTT. Perfectly reasonable. Without that protection the whole £18m is largely down the drain. Anyone coming into this with a vew to dealing with it honourably would still have taken an assignation of the charge.

    At the risk of repetition, Lloyds were secured. They would have been paid first had there been no deal. HMRC were not secured. They were never getting paid regardless of whether the deal with Whyte was done or not. That’s not a function of sharp practice or dodgy deals. Its a function of a business getting a very significant back tax bill for which it had not budgeted and which it cannot pay.

  20. Jonnybhoy says:

    Paulie it’s not so much the security but the preservation of the debt being before that date that the law changed – 2003? But then again does it really matter if a receiver or an administrator executes the prepack?

  21. Davythelotion says:

    Today’s Observer: Mike Clasper, Chair, HMRC writes, ‘HMRC does not do “sweetheart deals” with big business. Our job is to get the tax that they owe….The real culprits are those who hide fund in offshore accounts, cheat their VAT and falsify their accounts.’
    in other words: we’ve been caught by Private Eye helping out Vodaphone et al and now we have to stick to the rules.
    Nae luck CW!

  22. Goosy says:

    I hate to see any player getting a serious injury no matter who he plays for so best wishes to Naismith that he recovers sufficiently to continue his career
    As far as this blog is concerned I presume Naismiths as an asset will now be downvalued due to his injury and wonder whether this is a significant event asfaras the insolvencynumbers are concerned ?
    I also wonder what influence the £10m or so block of RFC debenture holders has on CW`s insolvency strategy ?

  23. Hugh McEwan says:

    Adam says:
    30/10/2011 at 7:50 pm

    Hugh McEwan says:
    30/10/2011 at 7:22 pm

    If the deal was in those terms are you suggesting they shouldn’t have taken it. Not gotten their £18m and still had a creditor looking at insolvency with them probably losing all of their money.

    Why on earth would a business do that.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    We need to stop this agreeing patter Hugh. 🙂

    I reckon thats possibly 3 times in the last 24 hours. lol

    _______________________________________________________

    I’m pretty certain it was 2.

  24. The Mighty Quinn says:

    Anyone got the inside scoop on tomorrows back pages?

  25. OnandOnandOnand says:

    so………………

    The theories are A) it’s a cunning plan by Lloyds,cfDouggie 73, or B) there’s a mysterious buyer who put Wee Craigie in as a front man to do the dirty work and who will then step out of the shadows the proclaim himself the Messiah, sending Wee Craigie off to Monaco with a suitcase full of dosh.

    He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy (got that one in twice and, yes,Hugh, I appreciate that it was said by a fictional character).

    Not convinced by either but readilyadmit that both are possible.

    Anyone got other theories? We are helping RTC here, it was he who first posed the question.

  26. Hugh McEwan says:

    He mucked up and never allowed for failure in Europe and arrestments from HMRC, Mr Bain and Mr McIntyre.

    This has left him between £8m and £23m short on his plan.

    CL football would have made saving the club a real possibility.

    EL and no arrestments would have meant he could easily sit it out till the FTT ruling. Then if necessary receivership / administration and blame it on SDM / HMRC.

    He is now having to make it up as he goes along.

  27. Mark Dickson says:

    My off the wall theory is that Whyte’s mystery backer is David Rowland’s (all under the radar off course!)

  28. TheBlackKnight says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    30/10/2011 at 9:22 pm

    You also missed;

    RTC is The Whyte Knight
    MB is RTC
    DMcI is RTC
    RTC is PMacG
    It all a big lie!
    There is no tax bill!
    The Vatican is behind it all! 😉

  29. easyJambo says:

    I’ve made a stab at calculating the total amount that creditors could potentially be owed at the point of Insolvency. I’m sure the accountants among us will tell me if I have included / excluded / miscalculated any items. The numbers are taken from the 2010 accounts as guideline figures or just best guesstimates on my part.

    £18M – Assigned debt from Lloyds
    £8M – Additional Wavetower debt (New investment, accrued interest and fees)

    £3.8M – The other loan (Lease Creditor)

    £3.7M – Small Tax Bill (excludes 500K already paid)
    £49M – Large tax Bill
    £2M – additional interest on the Tax bills above for the last 6 months
    £3M – PAYE, NIC & VAT outstanding

    £10M – Unused portion of Season Tickets for this season (1/3 through the season)
    £7.3M – Pre-paid multi-year season tickets
    £7.7M – Rangers Bond Holders

    £12M – Balance of Player Contracts
    £1.3M – Total of ex directors claims

    £2M – Trade Creditors

    £1M – other creditors (e.g. joe the plumber)

    I make that a total of £128.8M . It’s a frightening figure.

    The secured element is probably only the first £26M, but I’d expect that in a hive down or newco scenario he would take on say 50% of the player contracts and pay off trade creditors as a goodwill gesture in order to secure SPL status.

    The big imponderable for me is what happens to the ST and Bond holders. It could make a huge difference to the short, medium and long term future of the club if he shafts the supporters.

  30. Kip Kane says:

    According to the latest rumours Rangers are offering 10 mil and doing a pre- pack and will emerge debt free this week. So it’s looking like they’re getting away with it.

  31. TheBlackKnight says:

    The Mighty Quinn says:
    30/10/2011 at 9:19 pm
    “Anyone got the inside scoop on tomorrows back pages?”

    Yup!

    NOTHING TO SEE, MOVE ON!

    Or

    NEIL LENNON MUST GO!

  32. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Hugh,

    I take it that you don’t subscribe to the mystery backer theory then, it’s just CW getting in over his head and being overtaken by events? Probably the most sensible interpretation. But the question was, why did he do it in the first place?

  33. Private Land says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:

    30/10/2011 at 9:22 pm
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Why does the potential buyer have to be some shadowy figure waiting in the wings. There may be one or more vanity buyers/consortia waiting to see how things pan out before making any kind of move.
    Perhaps CW is aware of potential interest if he can get HMRC off his back. Maybe that has always been his function. He is the custodian of the club when it goes into insolvency. That puts the mark of Cain on him for the long term future, but he has made the club eminently more attractive to a potential buyer. His job is done. He walks with a nice wee earner and a Mr or Mrs New Rangers is annointed.

  34. Private Land says:

    Kip Kane says:

    30/10/2011 at 9:33 pm

    According to the latest rumours Rangers are offering 10 mil and doing a pre- pack and will emerge debt free this week. So it’s looking like they’re getting away with it.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Yup. Accompanied by a flypast of RAF Pig Squadron

  35. Mark Dickson says:

    How can the newco accept some debt liabilities ie ST’s sold but not others ie Tax Owed? Of course player contracts would be an asset to offset against the cost.

    By taking on ST debts as well as getting an SPL place + a percentage of Oldco’s SPL points won they’d be sailing very close to the wind re phoenix trading!

  36. Private Land says:

    Mark Dickson says:

    30/10/2011 at 9:37 pm
    __________________________________________________________

    Or maybe seen as a philanthropic gesture from MBB? 🙂

  37. OnandOnandOnand says:

    TBK,

    RTC is Craig Whyte…….. machiavellian, but I like it!! So that’s where he got the spreadsheet from

    Almost as machiavellian as Kip Kane’s posting, nice one Sam

  38. Private Land says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:

    30/10/2011 at 9:41 pm

    TBK,

    RTC is Craig Whyte…….. machiavellian, but I like it!! So that’s where he got the spreadsheet from

    Almost as machiavellian as Kip Kane’s posting, nice one Sam
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Canny be Sam. There’s no commas! I was out of breath at the end of the sentence 🙂

  39. OnandOnandOnand says:

    PL @ 9.36

    Yes, I take that point but it was very brave of CW to take all of this on without a buyer at hand, if sale was his plan. Besides, as I have posted before, why would this new buyer pay much more than CW paid? Business is a tough cookie, if you’re the seller and I’m the only buyer, I’m going to drive your price down. For your version to make sense, CW would have had to bet on there being several bidders to push the price up. In the SPL, I don’t see that as likely

  40. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Mark D @ 9.37

    It’s quite common for newcos to pay off some of the essential creditors of oldco, happens all the time. It can be very difficult for newcos to trade if they don’t do some deals with previous suppliers.

  41. Hugh McEwan says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    30/10/2011 at 9:33 pm

    Hugh,

    I take it that you don’t subscribe to the mystery backer theory then, it’s just CW getting in over his head and being overtaken by events? Probably the most sensible interpretation. But the question was, why did he do it in the first place?

    ==========================

    No lose scenario if played properly.

  42. TheBlackKnight says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    30/10/2011 at 9:45 pm

    Perhaps it is just a case of the Whyte Knight, insolvency specialist, venture capitalist,……

    “it does exactly what is says on the tin!” (armour in this case) 😉

  43. curious onlooker says:

    First there was Andrew Ellis then there was CW with Ellis beside him
    Surely that is significant.

    If you´re saying that the plan all along was only feasible with CL group stage income then I say you´re proably mistaken.
    If you´re saying that CW would enter into a very public enviroment with his secretive way of doing business, his own money and hope things fell in place then I say you´re probably mistaken.
    The wealthy individual is approached by Rangers as are others.
    Taxbill puts him off.
    Lloyds need a way out.
    Between Murray/MIH/LLoyds/Wealthy Ind. they find CW who is in the “right game”, is Scottish and has Rangers connections.
    You can work out the rest.

    Now it´s only a theory and I claim to have no sources whatsoever.
    I´m not convinced but it´s the most plausible I can think of.

  44. duggie73 says:

    OK- let’s try for all in a oney, just for once
    NottheHuddleMalcontent
    Whether Whyte can get >£18mil depends to the largest extent how much he can sell the players for, of if he can get them transfer to NewCo. Even in the spirit of speculation, I wouldn’t care to guesstimate what sort of return on players and resigning of players would actually happen in reality.
    Hugh
    If Lloyds didn’t sell then they’d be in the position Whyte is now vis-a-vis the £18mil debt , so it is somewhat disingenous to say they would have received nothing if they hadn’t sold up.
    Paulie
    The way in which the debt against the floating charge is going to be collected has been determined by the deal which Lloyds agreed to. If Whyte acts as selfishly as it is expected, it beats the hell out of me how Lloyds avoid the criticism for the appointment of a receiver which they would have been lambasted for if they had done it themselves. (Not to mention the fact that Whyte has more motivation to see insolvency happen, as he holds a higher debt against the charge).
    OnandOnandOn
    or
    3. There’s no backer, it’s Whyte’s personal wealth (plus money chanelled in from his investment businesses).

  45. jimbo milligan says:

    Just cannot see whyte for the life of me playing his hand until the FTT has reached a verdict.

    He’s already intimated he wont appeal it ,which is a retreat from his earlier position. But he cant make his getaway until HMRC provide the fatal blow , from that point on the blame gets slung firmly at murray and the taxman , and whyte plays the spin out that he did what he could,didnt come into this with his eyes shut etc etc etc .

  46. OnandOnandOnand says:

    TBK @9.51pm

    “Perhaps it is just a case of the Whyte Knight, insolvency specialist, venture capitalist,……

    “it does exactly what is says on the tin!” (armour in this case”

    Let’s hit this one on the head. Can we stop repeating the hype about Wee Craigie. “Insolvency specialist”????? Since when? Specialist at bailing out and leaving creditors high and dry. Show me one, just one, successful turnaround. “venture capitalist”? yes he invests in businesses but just looks like paper promises in most cases, where’s the beef?

    Oh, I forgot, they’re all under the radar. I’m off to watch The Sting again, can’t face the football highlights

  47. curious onlooker says:

    Edit.

    The wealthy individual is approached by Rangers as are others.
    Taxbill puts him off.
    Lloyds need a way out.
    wealthy ind. is reapproached with a plan to get round taxbill
    Between Murray/MIH/LLoyds/Wealthy Ind. they find CW who is in the “right game”, is Scottish and has Rangers connections.
    You can work out the rest.

  48. Kip Kane says:

    I’ll put it to you another way, it looks like HMRC are getting rice so why wouldn’t they get away with it? They’ve been getting away with it for a long time. On the first day of the tribunal a signal was passed between Rangers and one of the judges and at least two of them picked up on it.Do you seriously think they will sink them? Does anyone think that the SPL and the SFA will refuse to help the widow’s son. It’s not going to happen.

  49. Hugh McEwan says:

    curious onlooker says:
    30/10/2011 at 9:56 pm

    ———————————–

    Here’s the thing. My conclusions are based on what has actually happened so far, at least to the best of my knowledge. other people have more information than me, so they can come up with a more detailed analysis.

    Observe, record, analyse, conclude.

    Of course when Craig Whyte says things like he is behind this and has no backers he could be lying. There’s no way I can really factor that in, until it is demonstrated as a lie. Or him saying he budgeted for EL, I really have to believe him without evidence to the contrary.

  50. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Jimbo @ 9.58pm

    CW has spent the last month preparing the fans for administration, why wait? If he has to put money in, it can only be justified if he needs more debt to justify taking the assets in lieu of cash to repay his loan. Why would he do this? RTC and Jim McGinley have valued the assets at £12m tops, I can see Wee Craigie printing that post out and saying to his annointed IP “don’t bother with professional valuations, we’ll just use the RTC figure, despite it being 99% crap”

%d bloggers like this: