The Devil Is In The Details


Complex legal contracts do not make for light reading.  However, within the boilerplate, information can often be found that will raise eyebrows.  The contract between Murray Holdings Limited (MHL- the MIH subsidiary used to hold Rangers’ shares) and Wavetower (the original name for The Rangers FC Group Ltd) is no different.  I am told that the Share Purchase Agreement that transferred ownership of Rangers to Craig Whyte’s Wavetower is a treasure trove of interesting details.

For example, the CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH clause states what will happen in the event of Whyte failing to make good on his many promises.

In the event of and upon the Purchaser failing at the required time to satisfy any of its obligations in accordance with Clause 6.3 above the Purchaser (or any person who has been assigned the Total Purchaser Debt pursuant to Clause 6.3) agrees that the Total Purchaser Debt is automatically released or waived or otherwise extinguished in terms to be agreed by the Company, the Purchaser and the Seller.

This means that Sir David Murray, in making good on his promise to only sell Rangers to a responsible custodian capable of taking the club forward, has included a provision that promises that Rangers £18m debt owed to Wavetower will be cleared if Whyte fails to make good on certain specific promises.  So what did Whyte promise?

The Shareholder Circular released by Whyte provided some details, but let us summarise what Clause 6.3 actually says:

  • It provides for the £18m debt to Wavetower to be extinguished 90 days after the conclusion of The (Big) Tax Case
  • It prevents Whyte from charging interest on the debt prior to the tax case being resolved (but interest can be back dated if there is an insolvency event)
  • The debt to Wavetower will be capitalised (i.e. converted to shares and the debt written down) 25 days after the completion of any reorganisation that brings the club out of insolvency’
  • Whyte will pay in all working capital promised (£5m is specified, but more detail is defined in related contract documents).

So the critical questions is:

Has Whyte paid in all of the working capital promised?

I have been told that he has not.  As part of the conclusion of the deal, Whyte’s lawyers, Collier Bristow, provided a letter confirming that they had received £5m in funds from Whyte and that it would be held for Rangers FC to draw upon.  However, it is believed that this money has not actually been transferred to Rangers.  Whyte can clear up any doubt or uncertainty with an accounting of his working capital cash flow.

Rangers fans seeking to avoid or delay the turmoil of insolvency should be asking for an unambiguous answer from Whyte that all of the working capital investment provisions of the sale agreement have been fulfilled.

If they have not been fulfilled, one man has the power to pressure Whyte: Sir David Murray.  Murray was press-ganged by Lloyds Banking Group into signing the deal, but he did insist upon the provisions outlined above.  Were they just cosmetic insertions designed to allow him to argue later that he tried to do right by Rangers?  Or did he mean them?

If Whyte has not made good on all of the provision of the contract already, Murray can threaten to invoke the CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH clause.  This would see Rangers’ debt to Wavetower eliminated and would be a strong incentive for Whyte to make good on any difference between what he has paid into Rangers and what he has promised.

Forcing the debt to be reduced to zero would remove the protection of the floating charge for Whyte.  If the debt to Wavetower is extinguished, Rangers could even have a CVA (a Company Voluntary Arrangement) where repayment to HMRC is negotiated and the legal entity which traces its founding to Flesher’s Haugh in Glasgow Green in 1872 would continue with its history intact.  The threat of a three-year ban on European competition from UEFA would also be eliminated.  If Whyte has not made good on all of his working capital promises, Murray would have a chance to provide Rangers fans with the best possible outcome from the supporters’ perspective.  The only “victim” would be someone who would have had to have reneged on promises for this plan to have legal standing.

Mr. Whyte: have you fully implemented all of the obligations of Clause 6.3 of the Share Purchase Agreement?  A simple listing of your net payments into The Rangers Football Club plc would answer the question.

Mr. Murray: if Mr. Whyte has not fulfilled all of his obligations, why have you not enforced the provisions you negotiated?  It would be the best gift you could give the fans whose club teeters on the brink today?

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.

384 Responses to The Devil Is In The Details

  1. RTC – there is feeling (which may of course be wrong!) of events gathering pace.

    I had similar thoughts to yours recently, though you have put it more succinctly than my tome – http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/could-sir-david-murray-save-rangers/

    At that stage I thought it was there as a fig-leaf, but the more things develop, the more possibiity there is of something happening, even if only by Sir David Murray in an effort to clear his mane, as the consensus seems to be that, if there is an Insolvency Event, Mr Whyte will blame the previous ownership.

  2. andy Fitzpatrick says:

    I can’t and won’t believe that Murray did not know who and what kind of guy whyte is,, more smoke no fire

  3. I am a little slow Paul and I need to arrive at these conclusions at my own pace. 🙂

    I agree with you (obviously). The only issue is (if I understood your article) is that the wee tax case bill is not listed as a requirement of Clause 6.3. Two additional documents are referenced in this section: “Purchaser’s Solicitors Undertaking” and a “Working Capital Facility Letter”.

    I have not had the opportunity to read these documents, so I do not know if the Wee Tax Bill is referenced within them. However, the basic point- that if Whyte has reneged on any of the key provisions of 6.3, Murray is back in the spotlight as the man who could rescue Rangers.

    Would he do it?

  4. andy Fitzpatrick says:

    This surely isn’t a tag team job with Murray and whyte,,could it,,good cop bad cop

  5. Johnboy says:

    Whyte is working hand-in-glove with Collyer-Bristow on this, just as he has done, I would imagine, on other dealings in the recent past.
    Basically, he can transfer £5m from his account, put it into Rangers, then decide to transfer it back out to another company.
    So the cash has been invested, as promised. If only for a matter of hours or days.
    Whyte owns the club and calls the shots – and appears to be a master of obfuscation when it comes to the drawing-up of legal documents.
    Mind you, I think the demise of Rangers will be accompanied by a blizzard of court cases, all of which will strangle any impetus that Govan Wanderers 2012 would hope to build up.
    I get the feeling that this is just the end of the beginning.

  6. Mark says:

    if he is or isn’t he has been heard on bbc radio scotland that rfc are part of his past they are no more to do with him, could he come back in that event? it would certainly suit his ego, but then surely awkward questions would be asked about his stewardship to date, it would put him unecessarily back in the spotlight, best stay out and take flak at a distance no?

  7. rangerstaxcase says:
    31/10/2011 at 1:03 am
    —————————————————-
    The meat will be in the docs you mention. Sadly we might have to wait till Martin Bain’s proof to hear what they say, if Sir David does not take action!

    If Sir David views Mr Whyte as attempting to destroy what’s left of his reputation, what has he got to lose? Whilst we have all speculated about the effects of various possibilities, you are spot on that the debt being written off for a breach of undertaking would be a total game changer.

    As I said, it might seem bizarre that the person who can “save” Rangers is the man many now accuse of bringing it to the door of ruin!

    Mind you, I can imagine there will be some suggesting that this actually fits perfectly with the “Whyte as straw man” scenario. And at this time of night, who is to say that that is wrong!

  8. And I see that Andy F actually made the comment I was referring to in my last para before I hit send!

  9. Let me be very clear, I am not insinuating that Murray wants to come back or is working with Whyte. Everything I have been told is that Murray wanted out and is out.

    As there is no longer any profit in this for him, I suspect that he does not care enough to even ask if the promises have been fulfilled. He has his excuse that he negotiated these terms and that is where he hopes it ends. However, the provisions are worthless unless he enforces them.

  10. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:

    I see the Scotsman is now trotting out the “too big to fail” line – i.e. “too big to get chucked out of the SPL” – that is, or, to be correct, “too big to get done for cheating”. No author stated, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t the English man. The fallacious claim that “everyone would suffer” if the rankers got their just desserts will now become the main mantra of the laptop loyal.

  11. Private Land says:

    RTC

    agrees that the Total Purchaser Debt is automatically released or waived or otherwise extinguished in terms to be agreed by the Company, the Purchaser and the Seller

    Isn’t this just an agreement to agree something later? What if they can’t agree between themselves how or when the debt is to be released?

  12. frank says:

    If I read that correctly , the bit about Whyte having to swallow the £18m debt owed to his company by Rangers FC, why would him having to do that, mean that Rangers FC could then negotiate with the Taxman ?

  13. In case it gets lost in the changeover to the new post – I’ve reposted my comment on the last thread below. I should point out that both Onand x3 and Paulie W have pointed out possible inaccuracies in my post. My defence is that it is late, and I couldn’t read the blurry Daily Record front page!

    Paul McConville says:
    31/10/2011 at 12:20 am

    My latest piece – http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/rangers-and-hmrc-pre-pack/

    2000 words on pre-packs, and whether HMRC could block one – the answer depends, as many legal things do, but there is a clear way for an administrator to deal with things to avoid the need of HMRC consenting.

    I’ve also added a couple of quick points re (a) the supposed McIntyre attachment [or more corrcetly arrestment] of medals, as per the blurry Daily Record (if true, I think this has been done by McIntyre’s lawyers purely and simply to embarrass Rangers and (b) the differences re Farsley Celtic, caused by them being in liquidation, and the fact that the rules regarding phoenix companies are far more relevant to, and restrictive in, liquidations than administrations.

  14. Fritz
    As with the banking industry, “too big to fail” is used by the unimaginative to minimise the short-term disruption of a big change. However, they ignore the long term benefits that will likely accrue.

    The practical part of me understands that there is virtually zero chance of Scottish football applying a meaningful penalty to Rangers. A token gesture of a points deduction above the automatic 10 and that will likely be that. Keevin’s article on Friday seems like an odd bolt from the blue from a man who just a few weeks ago was privately still trying to understand what Rangers are supposed to have done. His 25 points story is the product of him pouring over bylaws? 🙂 Like all succulent lamb, it will have been handed to him and published fresh and warm. I wonder if he even stopped to read it before publishing.

    Someone wanted that story floated.

  15. Private Land says:
    31/10/2011 at 1:18 am
    —————————————–
    I expect, though you may well be right, that the other two documents which contain the full detail of the agreement will have the terms for deciding about write-offs pretty well spelt out.

    I cannot imagine that the extent of the agreement is as detailed in the Circular.

  16. Paul McConville says:
    31/10/2011 at 1:22 am (Edit)
    In case it gets lost in the changeover to the new post – I’ve reposted my comment on the last thread below. I should point out that both Onand x3 and Paulie W have pointed out possible inaccuracies in my post. My defence is that it is late, and I couldn’t read the blurry Daily Record front page!

    Paul McConville says:
    31/10/2011 at 12:20 am

    My latest piece – http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/rangers-and-hmrc-pre-pack/

    2000 words on pre-packs, and whether HMRC could block one – the answer depends, as many legal things do, but there is a clear way for an administrator to deal with things to avoid the need of HMRC consenting.

    I’ve also added a couple of quick points re (a) the supposed McIntyre attachment [or more corrcetly arrestment] of medals, as per the blurry Daily Record (if true, I think this has been done by McIntyre’s lawyers purely and simply to embarrass Rangers and (b) the differences re Farsley Celtic, caused by them being in liquidation, and the fact that the rules regarding phoenix companies are far more relevant to, and restrictive in, liquidations than administrations.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Thanks Paul. I will give that a look in the morning.

  17. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:

    RTC,

    I share your low opinion of the moral compass of those in charge of Scottish football, but I have to agree with other contributors here, if there is no meaningful penalty forthcoming, it will truly be the end of Scottish football. Many fans, of all other clubs would vote with their feet. What would be the point of following such a corrupt sport? Maybe that would be the preferred option for the shame, and their media poodles – “If we die, you all die”. A bit like Craig…….I mean Adolf in the bunker……….. (can’t get that spoof “Downfall” out of my head!)

  18. frank says:
    31/10/2011 at 1:20 am (Edit)
    If I read that correctly , the bit about Whyte having to swallow the £18m debt owed to his company by Rangers FC, why would him having to do that, mean that Rangers FC could then negotiate with the Taxman ?
    _________________________________________________________________

    Good point that probably needs more explanation for most readers.

    Whyte is currently protected by the floating charge on the £18m debt. As a secured creditor, he gets to have a receiver appointed. That means that he gets to hollow out RFC’s assets for his own benefit and does not have to negotiate with anyone. The shell is left behind with no worthwhile assets. RFC’s history will be left with the shell to die.

    All of the other insolvency processes that would see survival in some form- CVA or administration- would require 75% of the creditors by value to agree to any plan. HMRC will control these games as they will be owed so much more than anyone else. So Whyte will never get them to agree to sweet FA.

    If the £18m debt disappears, so does the protection of the floating charge. The unsecured creditors will then determine what happens to Rangers. HMRC will likely be more willing to negotiate knowing that it is getting a large percentage of Rangers asset value and that it will have been seen to have won. In a CVA, HMRC could even ask for repayment over time in the future. (In a CVA, it is the same legal entity that continues).

    This would keep everyone happy- I think. Rangers are forced to carry the millstone of repayment to HMRC around its neck for several years (allowing but not guaranteeing that other clubs can take advantage) AND the club continues in existence.

    Rangers fans are actually being misled when they are told that Whyte’s plan is in their best interests.

  19. Johnboy says:

    RTC,
    As I stated earlier, the rules for the SFA, SFA, SPL and , more pertinently, UEFA, state categorically that a club licence cannot be transferred to a new legal entity.
    So if a “phoenix firm” or “pre-pack” is involved, Govan Wanderers 2012 would have to apply for a new SFA club licence first.
    Only then could it apply to join a league.
    All recent precedents (including Italy, Ireland and Romania) suggest that some form of relegation would be involved.
    So they would have to restart in SFL3 or in a new SPL2.
    And be banned from Europe for 3 years. Them’s the rules for insolvent clubs.
    10 points or 25 points are penalties for administration and repeated administration.

  20. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:
    31/10/2011 at 1:39 am (Edit)
    RTC,

    I share your low opinion of the moral compass of those in charge of Scottish football, but I have to agree with other contributors here, if there is no meaningful penalty forthcoming, it will truly be the end of Scottish football. Many fans, of all other clubs would vote with their feet. What would be the point of following such a corrupt sport? Maybe that would be the preferred option for the shame, and their media poodles – “If we die, you all die”. A bit like Craig…….I mean Adolf in the bunker……….. (can’t get that spoof “Downfall” out of my head!)
    _______________________________________________________________
    “All those who have not been following Rangerstaxcase on twitter leave the room…” 🙂
    So proud!

    On the death of football? That is what short-term thinking does: it will take the immediate path of least resistence, but ignores the wider consequences. It will encourage others to cheat. Celtic will have been punished for living nearer to its means and selling assets when losing money.

    Too many other clubs are in serious trouble for them to apply meaningful penalties. An easy ride for Rangers codifies an easy path for themselves soon afterwards.

  21. duggie73 says:

    Messy.
    So if Whyte appoints a receiver prior to putting in £5mil, SDM could press for breach of contract and then
    *abandon hope of understanding what the hell’s going on all ye who enter here*

  22. Johnboy says:
    31/10/2011 at 1:44 am (Edit)
    ________________________________

    Johnbhoy: a CVA does not involve a new company. It would not fall foul of any of those provisions. (A CVA still counts as an insolvency event so there would still be a 10 point penalty).

    No transfer of a league place would be required.

    However, as the debts will dwarf the amount of money that anyone will pay to own Rangers, Whyte would basically be bombed out if Murray acted. If he has not paid all that he should have, he would lose his shareholding and his investment in debt.

    Someone would step up to buy RFC as it is and, if HMRC agrees, HMRC and other creditors would divide the proceeds.

  23. OnandOnandOnand says:

    RTC

    So the deal is

    we meet up and pool our resources ( I can kick in £42.40 from my scratchcard winnings)
    we use the winnings to go and see SDM and get an assignation of his rights under the agreement as he just wants to see the back of it all
    we pay him £1 for his rights
    we use the remaining £41.40 to buy Dave Hartnett a good Mcdees
    He okays a CVA with a promise of an “introduction” to CW’s “friend” at the last old firm game (did she really have two half footballs stuffed in her dress)
    we own Rangers

    Oh, fatal flaw……….. we own rangers

  24. OnandOnandOnand says:
    31/10/2011 at 2:04 am (Edit)
    __________________________________________________
    We have a strategic genius in our midst!

  25. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:

    “Rangers fans are actually being misled when they are told that Whyte’s plan is in their best interests”

    RTC,

    That would suggest that receivership is the only way for Whyte to get anything meaningful back, as, Admin/CVA would be in the control of HRMC, and, even with the best result, running a financially crippled football team for several years, no top players, no CL or EL money is not really his swag……I mean bag. He might then, of course sell it, but that would be additional financial burden to the buyer(s) with no prospect of ever reclaiming that outlay in the forseeable future? Not an attractive proposition, especially with plummeting attendances due to what would be the perceived leniency shown to the Shame, if indeed they knuckle-crunched their way to staying in the SPL..

  26. Private Land:

    The full quote is:
    Total Purchaser Debt is automatically released or waived or otherwise extinguished in terms to be agreed by the Company, the Purchaser and the Seller.

    OR being the key words here. This is only an agreement to agree (i.e. worthless) if these parties choose to revise the terms. The debt would be automatically released or waived otherwise. This looks good to me, but more qualified legal eyes than mine can comment.

  27. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:
    31/10/2011 at 2:09 am (Edit)
    “Rangers fans are actually being misled when they are told that Whyte’s plan is in their best interests”

    RTC,

    That would suggest that receivership is the only way for Whyte to get anything meaningful back, as, Admin/CVA would be in the control of HRMC, and, even with the best result, running a financially crippled football team for several years, no top players, no CL or EL money is not really his swag……I mean bag. He might then, of course sell it, but that would be additional financial burden to the buyer(s) with no prospect of ever reclaiming that outlay in the forseeable future? Not an attractive proposition, especially with plummeting attendances due to what would be the perceived leniency shown to the Shame, if indeed they knuckle-crunched their way to staying in the SPL..
    ________________________________________________________

    Yes. I still do not understand how Whyte leaves Rangers with a profit. Which makes me ask: what type of business would put in £18m and be happy with £12m back?

  28. frank says:

    frank says:
    31/10/2011 at 1:20 am (Edit)
    If I read that correctly , the bit about Whyte having to swallow the £18m debt owed to his company by Rangers FC, why would him having to do that, mean that Rangers FC could then negotiate with the Taxman ?
    _________________________________________________________________

    Good point that probably needs more explanation for most readers.

    Ok got that …

    If this did happen and someone stepped into buy Rangers as it were from the Taxman and others owed, they would I take it have to pay the full price £45m+ ( if taxman wins) and I take it the Taxman would want a large piece of that up front and maybe then allow the rest to be paid up.

  29. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:

    Beats me! I’m off to bed – my brain hurts……….

  30. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Why would Rangers playing in Division 3 and working their way up be bad for CW? He can pretty well control his costs to make a profit, or at least no loss, while they come back to SPL. Euro football is off the agenda for 3 years anyway, unless the widow’s son can appeal to them too.

    He will take a long view, if his costs are reduced, so is his risk. Rangers will come back stronger, without the high cost base and he will own it all.

    Feck the supporters, they will come back, he only needs 10,000 hard core to meet his costs and he’ll get that

  31. duggie73 says:

    I have a cunning plan.(well, not really, it is late)
    Those who don’t want a phoenix Rangers to get off scot-free set up a pledge fund to buy the Rangers trade name from a liquidator. Stops a receiver making them into Rangers2012 if the amount pledged> the amount paid….

  32. StevieBC says:

    As with the previous post re: the spreadsheet, I think the contract details above will simply generate lots of comments with speculation based on insufficient information.
    [Which can be entertaining nonetheless !]

    The real value of the contract details disclosure – IMO – is to reconfirm that the person who should be pursued by the MSM, [yes I know, but let’s pretend], is Sir Minty Moonbeams.

    As CW is not talking, Minty has the information/opinion that matters most.
    Why is he not being hounded by all journalists?

  33. Torquemada says:

    Sir David Murray unsuccessfully tried to sell Rangers for years while slowly losing control of his main company. He finally found a patsy to take his sipping spot at the Loving Cup but might now step back in out of the goodness of his heart or to save his already tattered reputation? Are we meant to believe this is a possibility?

    Two points:

    1 – A CVA which manages to save Rangers as an entity will still see them banned from Europe for three years, according to Uefa’s very strict regulations. Does anyone believe Murray would throw yet more money at Rangers?

    2 – HMRC don’t do deals, a fact that was spelled out only yesterday by its chairman in a hard-hitting and very defensive letter to the Observer. I quote:

    ”HM Revenue and Customs has taken quite a battering in recent months.The Media (including The Observer last week (“Welcome To Britain, A Haven For Tax Dodgers”), Parliament and pressure groups have variously accused HMRC of dishonesty, incompetence, secrecy and doing dodgy “sweetheart deals” with big business.
    ”As Chairman of HMRC, i feel that I should stand up publicly to defend the competence and integrity of my department. Last year, we brought in a record £486billion in tax revenue. Included in that was a record £13.9billion recovered from individuals and businesses who bent or broke the rules – more than twice as much as in 2005.
    ”HMRC does not do “sweetheart deals” with big business. Our job is to get the tax that they owe. Since we can’t talk about the details of these cases we are accused of unnecessary secrecy. The real culprits are those who hide funds in offshore accounts, cheat their VAT and falsify their accounts.”

    Mike Clasper
    Chair, HMRC
    London SW1A

    Doesn’t sound to me like a man who will countenance over £50m being paid on the drip to save a club which systematically abused the tax code over a decade and is still refusing to pay HMRC £2.8m it has already conceded it owes.

  34. Ontheroadagain says:

    Torquemada, when was that artcile with the HMRC Chairman published in the Observer?

  35. Torquemada says:

    It was a letter and it was published yesterday.

    I’m on my iPhone in the Far East so I can’t find a link for you. Sorry.

  36. Ontheroadagain says:

    Thanks for the confirmation, hopefully not false words from the chairman.

  37. stunney says:

    Former Rangers director Donald McIntyre ‘horrified’ after court order results in seizure of league medals

    Oct 31 2011 James Traynor

    Ibrox Stadium

    MEDALS won by Rangers stars for winning the league have been seized under a court order.
    The badges, worth almost £20,000, were grabbed by agents acting for the club’s former finance director Donald McIntyre. He recently won a legal bid to freeze £300,000 of the Gers’ assets as part of a breach of contract case.

    Agents for McIntyre had targeted possible revenue from the Scottish Premier League owed to the club for television rights.

    No TV funds are due at present but they uncovered the title medals in a box at the SPL’s offices.
    McIntyre was unaware of the move.

    He is understood to have been horrified players were being denied their gongs for their third Premier League title in a row.

    He has since ordered his team to “unfreeze” the medals.

    A source said: “This court case has nothing to do with the players. It is down to a dispute with the owners.”

    McIntyre won his case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh this month when Lord Hodge ruled in his favour.

    He resigned as a director after treating his contract as having been repudiated.

    The same judge ordered the ring-fencing of £480,000 over a similar case brought by Rangers’ former chief executive Martin Bain.

    The court actions come after the club’s ownership was taken over from Sir David Murray by businessman Craig Whyte.

    Lord Hodge ruled in the arrestment proceedings brought by Mr Bain that there was “a real and substantial risk” of insolvency at Rangers following the major tax case the club faces.

    Bain has raised a £1.3million claim for damages against Rangers over his contract.

    Hm Revenue and Customs have had around £2.3million frozen in a tax dispute and the club also faces a disputed tax bill for up to £49million, which is under appeal.

  38. Airdrie76 says:

    HMRC did a deal with Livingston. Granted the amounts and situation differed. But they did a deal. And im sure have done elsewhere too.

  39. jmbhoy67 says:

    If Big Tax Case does eventually get a final hearing I don’t think HMRC will screw up again after Goldman Sachs got off the hook for 10M interest due on EBTs.

    …………£10m of taxpayers’ money was thrown away because of a “technical mistake” by an unidentified official

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/11/goldman-sachs-interest-tax-avoidance

  40. Gwared says:

    Good morning all,
    Well what a somersault we have had overnight! I must say I love the idea of Rangers doing a CVA. As I understand it they will get a 10 point penalty, be out of Europe for three years and still be liable for the full Tax repayment over a period of years which would cripple them financially.

    Seems like justice to me?

  41. Lord Wobbly says:

    Just out of interest, can McIntyre release the medals without affecting his claim? eg Can he say “I don’t want this asset, I want that one instead”? Or does he have to accept whatever is caught?

    I’m assuming he cannot pick and choose. So if he gives up the medals does he also give up the claim?

  42. JD says:

    It will be a sad day when this blog comes to an end ,I have not bought a daily paper in weeks,I also have the radio on when on the site and there has been nada reported which has not been on this site previously.

  43. Paul McConville,RTC- Would the fact that the reason they are in debt is through the use of an ILLEGAL EBT scheme not then be taken into account when it woukd be decided if HMRC could block a CVA if it comes to it and they go down the pre-pack route??

  44. So,agents for McIntyre turn up at the SPL office to arrest any monies owed to Rangers.No money to be had .then a wee cleaner.or someone just trying to help says,”Wait a minute,is there no a biscuit tin with some medals in that drawer there”.

    Great stuff.

    On a serious note,though.If I’m reading this correctly,an insolvency event is still inevitable,but SDM could screw MBBCW.Is this correct?.

  45. stunney says:

    “The badges, worth almost £20,000, were grabbed by agents acting for the club’s former finance director Donald McIntyre. He recently won a legal bid to freeze £300,000 of the Gers’ assets as part of a breach of contract case.”

    Is it a fair inference from this sentence that The Rangers have not only less than 300k in the bank, but a helluva lot less?

    But how much was this month’s payroll? Or was the payroll already committed to before McIntyre’s bovver boys went on their wee treasure hvnt?

    But how’s the next payroll being funded?

    The questions are many, but the answers are few…

  46. I suppose this confirms post last week that RFC were down to their last £200k.

  47. Lord Wobbly says:

    Torq/Ontheroadagain

    Here is a link to the Observer letters page. The Mike Clasper letter is last but one.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/oct/30/observer-letters-economists-george-osborne?INTCMP=SRCH

  48. Buddy Morrisey says:

    “Badges! badges … we don’t want no stinking badges “

  49. stunney says:

    First they came for the medals…

    Then the came for the Loving Cup…

    …Finally they came for…

    …the brogues.

  50. Just a thought.Naismiths medical bill will add up to a tidy wee sum,especially if he’s out for the season.Could he,hypothetically,be left,say 2 weeks from now with no club and no medical cover.
    Have to be treated on the NHS.He may wait a while,£50m would make a big difference to their budget.

%d bloggers like this: