Borrow Borrow


The revelation that Craig Whyte’s Rangers is selling off more of the family silver to stay in business just a while longer answers a few questions about this puzzling situation.  It is now abundantly clear that Whyte’s tardiness in paying creditors is more than just a bad habit.  It is also clear that there are no vast pools of wealth on which Whyte can draw to keep Rangers on life support.

For those of us who have indulged in reading entrails to try to understand Whyte’s actions, it is becoming ever more clear that there is no plan.  Any semblance of a grand design evaporated into the Scandanavian air on 3 August when Rangers failed to qualify for the group stages of the Champions’ League.  Even the booby-prize of Europa League qualification would not have come close to filling the chasm in Rangers finances that opened that night.

With records released on the Companies House website confirming that Rangers have given a fixed charge security over their assets to an English finance company called Close Brothers, it is clear that Whyte is selling the family silver in return for delaying insolvency.  The news that Rangers came within a few hours of having a winding up petition approved against them yesterday is quite remarkable.  That Whyte has had to resort to the desperate end of the corporate finance spectrum shows how close to the edge things have become.

We do not know how much has been borrowed.  Therefore, we do not know if this was just a small amount of funding that keeps the wolf from the door for a few weeks or whether he has established the line of funding that will see Rangers through to the opening of the transfer window in December.  If Whyte’s negotiation tactics have improved since the summer, he might not over-price his sellable players again.  He might even attract an actual offer for Jelavic this time.  To ignore the transfer window and fund Rangers through to the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) returns its findings (possibly as late as March 2012), Whyte would need to have borrowed about £15m.  Only at this time could Whyte legitimately claim that insolvency was caused by the legacy tax issues rather than his inability to run Rangers.

Borrowing against Rangers’ assets now not only reduces Whyte’s prospects of making a profit on Rangers (as faint as they were), but this greatly complicates any insolvency filing.  The odds of a Rangers liquidation and a disorderly meltdown in insolvency have now risen from the fanciful hopes of dreaming Celtic supporters to something that needs to be given serious consideration.

Whyte seems to be either holding out hope of Rangers getting an against-the-odds result in its dispute with HMRC or is trapped in the ‘bargaining’ phase of grief: trading all he has for more time.  Until now, Whyte-watchers had to consider the possibility that the Motherwell-born-billionaire had a plan that would outfox everyone.  It looks increasingly clear that he has just been making it up as he is going along since the Malmo game.

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.

713 Responses to Borrow Borrow

  1. Johnobhoyo says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/11/2011 at 9:38 pm

    Johnobhoyo says:
    04/11/2011 at 9:33 pm

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

    You really are reading too much follow follow nonsense.

    There is no bluff or game of poker. No who blinks first.

    This is business and HMRC will demand payment of what they win at tribunal (if anything). It’s that simple.

    *************************************************************************************************

    Hugh – why didn’t HMRC go in for the winding up with regards to the wee tax case then? Go in, threaten them with winding-up, get the money, job done or else RFC liquidated. Instead we continue with this fannying about around the 60 days or is it 90 odd days before HMRC get the cash. Given Whyte’s desire to get to the FTT there was very little chance of him not paying given a winding up order. He had hoped such action wouldn’t occur.

    HMRC are not going to get too much if they win the FTT anyway and they’ll have managed to send RFC down the swannee. Isn’t that a warning shot across the bows of all these other clubs who have allegedly misused EBTs? As you said even an FTT win does NOT set any legal precedent.

  2. yossery says:

    stunney says:
    04/11/2011 at 8:07 pm

    Maybe whyte is simply a good deal sharper than you give him credit for, always another possibility.

  3. Johnobhoyo says:

    steve-b says:
    04/11/2011 at 9:44 pm

    again Johnobhoyo go back and read PW’s post earlier it will explain all

    *****************************************************************************************************

    Steve-b I am led to believe this is the second or third time HMRC have issued a winding up order to Hearts for unpaid tax – on each occasion the bill was paid quickly . Likewise, didn’t Falkirk cough up recently when faced with a winding-up order? Yet Paulie Walnuts said

    “The problem with it is that if you get your winding up order you very rarely get your money”

    Yet in the (admittedly very small) number of cases we’ve seen recently it has worked and HMRC have very much gotten their money. We’re talking about Hearts and Falkirk here – two clubs who have been teetering on the brink for a long time now.

    Likewise, what is the point of HMRC getting an arrestment if they didn’t think RFC had the money to pay them in the first place? That doesn’t make sense.

    So as a tax-payer I would have hoped that HMRC would really have went for the jugular with the wee bill. It has been shown that RFC did have the funds to pay it, so another misjudgment from HMRC on this one IMO.

  4. tomtom says:

    Johnobhoyo says:
    04/11/2011 at 9:53 pm

    Hugh – why didn’t HMRC go in for the winding up with regards to the wee tax case then? Go in, threaten them with winding-up, get the money, job done or else RFC liquidated. Instead we continue with this fannying about around the 60 days or is it 90 odd days before HMRC get the cash. Given Whyte’s desire to get to the FTT there was very little chance of him not paying given a winding up order. He had hoped such action wouldn’t occur.

    HMRC are not going to get too much if they win the FTT anyway and they’ll have managed to send RFC down the swannee. Isn’t that a warning shot across the bows of all these other clubs who have allegedly misused EBTs? As you said even an FTT win does NOT set any legal precedent.
    ———————————————————————–

    HMRC have as good as got the money for the wee tax case. They were owed £2.3m for the original tax bill and they got £2.3m. The fact that it is sitting in a suspense account somewhere doesn’t matter. They wouldn’t be able to petition for a winding up for the penalties and interest because they appear to be under dispute. To paraphrase Hugh Keevins “what is your point caller”

  5. Hugh McEwan says:

    Johnobhoyo says:
    04/11/2011 at 9:53 pm

    ——————————————

    Keep clutching at straws, it’s rather quaint.

  6. andy says:

    Likewise, what is the point of HMRC getting an arrestment if they didn’t think RFC had the money to pay them in the first place? That doesn’t make sense.

    So as a tax-payer I would have hoped that HMRC would really have went for the jugular with the wee bill. It has been shown that RFC did have the funds to pay it, so another misjudgment from HMRC on this one IMO.

    why is a misjudgement if what they went for worked
    they arrested the money that whyte was not going to volunteer

  7. Madmitch says:

    First comments on RTC about the TFOD and what the future holds for them. I have struggled to keep up with developments so my thoughts may be so far behind they are about to get lapped.

    Trying to work out what “MBB” is aiming to get from all this?
    Is he trying to nickel and dime the situation, playing the useful idiot to set the stage for the real main player to make his move and get TFOD on the cheap without the HMRC / Big Tax Bill hovering over the carcas?

    When the plug is pulled what can MBB expect?

    The floating charge now benefits him and not HBOS so he is in pole position for his £18mill + expenses / interest charges. Administrator does his stuff, tries to keep the show on the road and so MBB’s £18mill stake money that he put into the club and 6 / 8 / 10 months worth of interest at Provi cheque levels and inflated management fees – £500K per month at a guess anyone – will be covered although it may take sometime.

    He re-pays the £18mill he owes to somebody / something along with the interest costs which would have been up at £200K per month and he walks away with any surplus he has been able to gather?

    Could this be the reason he has been trying to keep the show going as long as possible? Is this the reason he has been stalling on the wee tax bill and the interest it will generate in the face of reason – he has to pay and to stall only increases the interest associated with the bill but at the same time his personal profit is based on how long he is in charge?

    Stalling = Bad for the TFOD but good for MBB.

    Next question then has to be how much money could a good administrator get for the TFOD?
    Fire sale in Jan 2012 – top 6 players sold – what would they generate and how much would come off the wage bill?

    £15mill in sales / £100K per week of the wages?
    Could the administrator run the TFOD for cash?
    Selling tickets for each game after reneging on the season ticket obligations?
    Balancing the boks on a cash basis and waiting until the Big Tax Case is finished.
    White Knight appears to buy the club if they can get agreement with 75% of the creditors.
    Offers £28mill – £8mill to sort out the floating charge / £20mill to the creditors – 40p in the £.

    Gets the TFOD back up and running as the original entity, dignity intact.
    However this will cost more money as the creditors HMRC will play hard ball.
    Bare bones of a squad will still be on the books and the wages will be lower / realistic.

    Either that waits for the messy liquidation and does some bottom feeding on the assets.
    That way they get the club for less, pick and choose the good bits but without their history.
    Playing staff will be an issue but at least the wages will be controllable.

    Consequently any thoughts?
    Apologies if this angle has been worked out in the dim and distant past.

  8. Interested Observer says:

    From what PW said in an earlier post, it seems that the end of November/beginning of December will be a crucial time for the club.

    Obviously the wages need paid at the end of this month (perhaps Close Brothers have provided enough funding for the bill to be covered?) and then HMRC can dip into the club’s bank account and get the £2.3m they arrested.

    Of course, it will be more than that now but we know from his interviews post-BBC documentary that he is disputing the penalties etc so that will take time to sort out no doubt.

    CW is clearly a man who doesn’t like paying bills. He either leaves creditors high and dry or makes them sweat until the last possible moment. There is obviously no reason for not paying the wee tax bill other than the one suggested earlier, which is to keep his options open until the beginning of December.

    I comment with no authority but if someone asked me to wager on what I think has/is happening then it would be this: HMRC will pick up their £2.3m but he’s secured enough money from Close Brothers to trade through to January where he will maybe boost the coffers by selling a Jelavic or a Davis for a few million.

    That will see him through to the February/March period with the FTT result expected. If it’s positive, happy days. If it’s negative, administration time.

    In the meantime, he will increase his creditor status by ramping up management fee costs etc. More importantly, Ibrox and Murray Park will (right now or certainly in the coming weeks) be transferred from club ownership to ownership of one of his companies or a company belonging to an associate.

    A Rangers OLDCO or NEWCO will then have that leased back to them over a long period of time at something like a £1m a year, ensuring CW and his cohorts rake it in post-insolvency and for years to come safe in the knowledge that the PR line of “I had no choice but to file for admin, I bought the club, I did my best, but this is the legacy of an old regime” will hold steady and be unchallenged by fans and the media.

    He is in a win-win situation as long as he can muddle along to the FTT result. This funding from Close Brothers makes it easier to do that. He clearly doesn’t mind giving up a percentage now in order to gain a bigger percentage further down the track.

    That said, if the money from Close Brothers only keeps the club going until the end of this month, then, as an earlier poster, quotes, he really is “ducking and diving” and playing for time until he decides what to do.

    Great analysis and comment guys, already looking forward to next week’s coverage! I know I’ll get the real/inside story here!

  9. stunney says:

    Yossery opined:

    “Maybe whyte is simply a good deal sharper than you give him credit for, always another possibility.”

    I simply stated a fact about the impression I had of him.

    But you’re right to point out he could be one smart cookie and has us all non-billionaires fooled in characteristically sub-radar fashion. That is indeed a possibility.

    It takes a genius to have your players’ winners* medals seized and still have the loyal backing of the gigantic intellects that populate the Copland Road stand.

  10. Johnobhoyo says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/11/2011 at 10:07 pm

    Johnobhoyo says:
    04/11/2011 at 9:53 pm

    ——————————————

    Keep clutching at straws, it’s rather quaint.

    **************************************************************************************
    Well done Hugh – but I have yet to see a plausible argument for HMRC not going down the winding up route with RFC yet doing so for Hearts and Falkirk.

    If I am so quaint, then don’t bother replying to me, but for once try to think for yourself rather than believing only the stuff that you want to believe.

    If the sniff sniff crap is all you can use against me then you truly have no basis for an argument. As my club is about to go 15 points behind in the first week of November, you have the cheek to accuse me of clutching at straws even though I’m not relying on a First Tier Tribual (Tax) to get us out of an utter nightmare situation in terms of our league position – something that 99.9% of football fans knew nothing about until this blog came into existence. Unfeckinbelievable.

    But I suppose you are one of these new-age Celtic fans more interested in balance sheets than football pitches. I’ll not be joining in the applause when Lawwell parades that balance sheet trophy round the pitch this season, no doubt you will.

  11. Davythelotion says:

    RTC, you have either claimed or confirmed claims from posters which you would expect the MBB to lawyer up, as he is supposed to have done with the BBC. Have you ever received, or threatened with, notice of legal action?
    The reason I’m asking is that if CW is telling the truth, then Farter Cuck should be all over you like a cheap suit.

  12. jonny says:

    IMO
    there are only two things left to look at
    1. can and will ragers be able to go in and out of admin before the end of the season .
    2. If they become insolvent ,how can they get back into the spl as the NEWCO backers won’t fancy playing in the 3rd div

  13. Hugh McEwan says:

    Johnobhoyo says:
    04/11/2011 at 10:17 pm

    Hugh McEwan says:
    04/11/2011 at 10:07 pm

    Johnobhoyo says:
    04/11/2011 at 9:53 pm

    ——————————————

    Keep clutching at straws, it’s rather quaint.

    **************************************************************************************
    Well done Hugh – but I have yet to see a plausible argument for HMRC not going down the winding up route with RFC yet doing so for Hearts and Falkirk.

    If I am so quaint, then don’t bother replying to me, but for once try to think for yourself rather than believing only the stuff that you want to believe.

    If the sniff sniff crap is all you can use against me then you truly have no basis for an argument. As my club is about to go 15 points behind in the first week of November, you have the cheek to accuse me of clutching at straws even though I’m not relying on a First Tier Tribual (Tax) to get us out of an utter nightmare situation in terms of our league position – something that 99.9% of football fans knew nothing about until this blog came into existence. Unfeckinbelievable.

    But I suppose you are one of these new-age Celtic fans more interested in balance sheets than football pitches. I’ll not be joining in the applause when Lawwell parades that balance sheet trophy round the pitch this season, no doubt you will.

    ——————————————————

    Rangers will be wound up.

    Probably a pre-pack administration. Which is just another name for liquidation.

    They won’t exist any more, even if the try to claim a new company is still the original Rangers.

    It won’t be.

    Enjoy.

    I certainly will.

  14. Jonnybhoy says:

    Will the two novemeber home games and the glamour friendly bring in enough cash to pay the wages at the end of the month?

  15. Private Land says:

    Seems to me that HMRC have played a blinder when it comes to the wee bill. They don’t operate in a vacuum and they know that Rangers’ main aim is to avoid paying the tax (big and wee) that they are due (that is of course shameful and reprehensible).

    Consequently they knew that Rangers would be happy for a winding up order to be requested by HMRC. So HMRC instead arrested the funds and hope that no-one else (like the recent football creditor) pushes MBB over the edge.

    If HMRC had asked for the winding up order they’d have got nothing. This way, they get at least a couple of million of the money MBB was planning to stuff into his back pocket.

    Johnobhoyo, my take on what you are saying is that it’s reasonable and not at all shameful to rip the taxpayer off for tens of millions of quid. If it were me, lie you I’d probably be in the place where I hoped my club could get out of this hole by any means possible – but I still think I’d be just a tad shamed if thirty schools or half a dozen hospitals worth of opportunity was pissed up against a wall as a result.

    Anttipathy towards Rangers aside, I think I’d much rather see the tax paid (and the hospitals or schools built) than Rangers going down. In fact I’d be happy if Celtic helped them back into the SPL on the back of a voluntary undertaking by Newco to pay the tax back to reclaim the ‘dignity’ of Rangers.

    Never gonna happen though is it?

    Our standards; and your and theirs. Not the same.

  16. evens says:

    @Stunney

    If you have reason to believe that someone has a mental health problem, and is living in the community without having been assessed, then you have a duty to raise your concerns with the relevant Mental Health Officer (MHO). They are legally obliged under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 2006 to investigate the circumstances of your concerns.

    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/10/02095357/4

  17. paulmac says:

    andycol says:
    04/11/2011 at 8:05 pm
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Players are also generally entitled to a percentage of any transfer fee thatthey have not requested…the norm is 10%..

    They would be entitled to the 10% as a lump sum up front…therefore if a player is sold for say £5m…the player would be looking for £500k as a leaving cheque…whilst the sale maybe structured in a way that you get £2m up front (minus the players £500k loyalty payment…and tax) with the rest to follow in staged payments..

  18. tomtom says:

    I haven’t had a drink yet but I’m confused. Is johnobhoyo a celtic or rangers fan? Who is johnnybhoy?

    Woman, get me a drink!!

  19. Moctical says:

    Stunney/RTC,

    Don’t know what the rumours are, but I put it out on twitter after the ITV interview that Craig Whyte might have Asperger’s Syndrome.

  20. stunney says:

    evens, to be perfectly frank, if his mental health is problematic, I’d rather see him use it to good effect by making a mess of The Rangers. So pardon my adoption of a Napoleonic strategy of non-intervention while opponents are in the midst of commission of errors.

    Besides, I’m content to enjoy retirement on my vast private estate—complete with winery and swimming pool—-here in sunny California.

  21. Auldheid says:

    Johnobhoyo says:

    04/11/2011 at 9:09 pm

    Here’s another thought from the darkened room. it has to do with the principle behind clubs being deducted points. It is not just because they have been naughty boys.

    Whilst most of the current focus is on Rangers future, there is also an aspect of their past that will depend on the outcome of the FTT.

    What happens to Rangers past is a matter for the SFA and SPL based on the principle behind a 10 point deduction iwhich is that by paying players rather than other creditors the club gained an unfair advantage over their competitors.

    But this EBT advantage goes back to 2000 when they started to use them to keep pace with Celtic and continued from 2007 when rather than make provision for paying the taxes they had avoided they entered further debt to win three titles.

    This principle of negating advanatge will still apply regardless of how football deals with administration/insolvency/oldco/newco but it is in danger of being overlooked in the debate about how Scottish football can survive the demise of Rangers.

    If the FTT decides for HMRC that will make the taxpayer the victim of Ranger’s behaviour, but who will decide if other clubs have been footballing victims, to what extent and what is just punishment?

    Rangers and Rangers alone put themselves in this position and in doing so gained an unfair advantage for years that possibly deprived other clubs including Celtic of income they might otherwise have earned.

    They have to be found guilty of damaging their fellow clubs but who is going to bring the charge never mind make a just judgement that the principle that underpins a points deduction, i.e a club should not benefit from uts maladministration, demands?

    If that priniple were to be applied Rangers should be stripped of their titles since 2000 in whatever form they continue under if HMRC get a judgement that Rangers in using EBTs committed a foul against football of red card proportions.

  22. tomtom says:

    Now have my drink at hand. Just back in from a fireworks display. Rangers players Alexamder, Davis and Healy were there- do they no longer go to a hotel the night before a game?

  23. yossery says:

    The fact that HMRC were willing to press for a winding up order against Hearts for 1% of the alleged total rangers could owe, should set alarm bells ringing for even the guilty at any cost stalwarts.
    Strange HMRC wouldn’t press for a winding up for £50 million preferring a tribunal but will for £500,000, maybe their case is not as strong as expected.

  24. Johnobhoyo says:

    Private Land – wrong on so many levels.

    Firstly – I never said what they did was right. But as is the MO of many on this blog you believe what you want to believe and read what you want to read regardless of whether it’s actually true or not. I said I understood why MBB was doing what he was doing by not paying the wee tax bill given that he’s not going to be able to pay the big tax bill if it hits.

    As for ripping off people – messers Lawwell and Desmond have been doing that to saps like me at Celtic Park for a good few years now. What do you think of their morals? How much was SPLOB paid over the last few years?

    Secondly – are you saying that MBB wanted the HMRC winding-up order enforced so that he could then take RFC into liquidation? If that is what you are saying then it’s utter bull shine and you have not one shred of evidence to back this up.

    Thirdly – you talk about us and them. But you seem too ignorant to realise how similar you sound to the we are the peepul brigade. They think they are morally superior and likewise you say just exactly the same thing with your “we are better than them” patter. I don’t know what’s sadder, the fact you actually believe what you write or the fact that you cannot see how your ethos is in fact eerily similar to the superiorty complex so many of the rangers fans have.

  25. Johnobhoyo says:

    Auldheid – is that a verbatim copy of something you posted on KDS earlier on today? I scanned through it and saw the piece about stripping rangers of all their titles won since the year 2000. What was it I said about straightjackets earlier on tonight again?

  26. Johnobhoyo says:

    Privateland – any comments on these claims about our very own Kaiser, or does your moral compass take a back seat when matters more close to home are divulged:

    http://www.politico.ie/component/content/article/7383-pay-your-taxes-or-shut-your-mouths.html?showall=1

    “Two places behind him is the rakishly attired ‘investor’ Dermot Desmond. Over the last year, Desmond has seen his riches grow €50 million to the handsome total of €1.5 billion. That’s a tidy sum for someone whose principal line of work is nothing more productive than gambling on the prices of currencies and commodities.

    O’Brien and Desmond share rather more in common of course than merely their proximity on the Sunday Independent’s Rich List. For starters, both men are seasoned tax avoiders. Neither of them pays a single cent into the now seriously depleted coffers of the Irish state. You might reasonably presume that the graceless greed of O’Brien and Desmond might have consigned them to the margins of Irish public life, reduced them even perhaps to the status of pariahs. Surely anyone who fails to pay their taxes could not be allowed to have any say in the political affairs of the state? That presumption accords not only with the moral codes of any country that aspires to call itself a Republic but also with the most elementary precepts of everyday life. Imagine that you throw one of those potluck dinners in which the host and guests bring along some version of food to be shared by everyone. The wealthiest person in your circle of aquaintance not only turns up empty handed but then proceeds to whinge very loudly about the quality of provender on offer. How would the mithering freeloader in our simple moral fable be received by the other generous souls gathered around the table? You would like to think that in short order the vocal parasite would be told to keep his mouth shut and then, if necessary, shown the door.

    It really is a fairly basic reflex of natural justice. If you don’t pay your way, you don’t get a say. No representation without taxation and all that. It is one of many sources of regret and shame in contemporary Ireland that even this most elementary of Republican principles is routinely ignored and infringed. Not only are tax dodging billionaires allowed to participate in the public life of the state, their voices are in fact the ones most loudly and most insistently heard. In the fractured moral universe of late modern Ireland, we are all expected to remain silent like children around the table, looking in embarrassment at our shoes as the gatecrashers and freeloaders clear the spread in front of them even as they berate us for the poor calibre of the fare.

    This specific facet of the moral iniquity of Irish public life was highlighted with particular clarity last week. On Tuesday 15th, the Irish Times heralded the publication of a major report by influential figures from political and corporate life seeking to map out a new course for the country. In its edition of the following day, the national paper of record offered considerable space and evident approval to the prescriptions contained in A Blueprint for Ireland’s Recovery. The tone struck by the authors of the report is ostensibly reasonable and even humble. Those who contributed their considerable wisdom to the Blueprint were apparently driven purely by ‘a sense of deep concern about the challenges that Ireland is now facing’. The group, moreover, ‘does not believe that it has a monopoly on good ideas’, only that it has some that might just help pull Ireland out of the current crisis. The policies advanced by the authors of the Blueprint are intended not merely to enable the Irish Republic to emerge out of recession but to become a more progressive society. On the first page proper of the document alone we are informed on three separate occasions that the purpose of reviving the economy is to ‘create an equal and fair society’.

    This document seems then to mark a radical and exciting new departure in Irish political life. Here is a group of influential and prestigious individuals who have given freely and selflessly of their time in order to imagine that another Ireland is possible, one guided by the values of ‘social protection of the most vulnerable, equality of opportunity, freedom of choice, diversity and fairness’. Now there would be a political agenda that anyone with a grain of conscience could sign up to. If only it were true. The political values that actually inform the Blueprint are in fact precisely the opposite of those proclaimed in the text. The policies advocated by its authors are of course ones that accord with their own considerable interests but will undermine those of almost everyone else in Ireland. This should come as little surprise. If you wanted to know the interests and appetites that animate the Blueprint you would only have to cast an eye down the list of its contributors. Among the seventeen trojans of Irish political and corporate life that offered their insights to the report is the pair of billionaire tax evaders we encountered earlier, namely Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond. Once you know that, the actual text of the Blueprint more or less writes itself for you.

    So what exactly are these bright ideas that the great and good believe will lead us to the promised land of national recovery? The goal set out by the authors of the Blueprint is for Ireland to become the most ‘competitive’ country in the Eurozone within the next five years. That is an entirely reasonable sounding ambition until you stop to consider that the adjective employed here is a euphemism for something entirely unreasonable. The attempt to make Ireland more ‘competitive’ will of course entail wholesale cuts in wages – though not profits, rents or dividends – that will impact most viciously on those who barely earn enough to make ends meet as it is. The Blueprint delves further into its fund of euphemisms when making the case for a public sector that is more ‘efficient and effective’. This will entail the privatisation of state assets and the reduction of the number of people drawing wages from the public purse. At one point, the Blueprint advocates the ‘urgent objective of reducing public service headcount by a minimum of 30,000’. The policy is advanced with such blithe indifference that you almost forget that what is being suggested here is something that will ruin the lives of tens of thousands of ordinary Irish people. Those who are condemned to unemployment would, if the authors of the report had their way, face ever more rigorous forms of surveillance and harassment aimed at the elimination of ‘waste and fraud’. The Blueprint advocates the use of ‘chip and pin’ technologies and even raises the spectre of biometrics being employed to monitor the jobless. Why so coy? Why not just electronically tag the poor and be done with it? After all, one of your companies would probably have a fair chance of securing the contract to supply the anklets.”

  27. Veritas says:

    Interesting take on the big tax case from a Gers fan last night. He said that HMRC should accept a payment from the club – whatever they can fairly and realistically afford – on the basis that if the revenue insist on full settlement it will force a closure and they will then get nothing. To do the latter, he added, would be to rob the taxpayer of at least some revenue. He does have a point. Of course, if Whyte really wants to lose the case then this could also stymie his nefarious plan. Your thoughts…

  28. Auldheid says:
    04/11/2011 at 10:56 pm
    ———————————————————-
    Auldheid, the football authorities are not going to strip anyone of any titles. The rule book does not permit it, and, unlike the Marseille and Juventus issues where they were penalised, there is no “football offence” here.

    No football club is going to sue either Rangers of the fotball authorities for loses allegedly caused by this – firstly because there is a common interest amongst teams and seconfly UEFA and FIFA do not want football disputes played out in the civil courts, as Sion have tried to invoke.

    You are entitled to put forward your argument that morally Rangers should be stripped of titles (it is an issue sublect to vigorous debate) but as far as anyone actually doing anything about it – no chance.

    yossery says:
    04/11/2011 at 10:59 pm
    —————————————————————
    HMRC arrested the funds for the small bill because they could. Doing so meant that there was far more chance of them actually getting the funds than if they went down the liquidation road (as we know regarding the Wavetower floating charge). It is also far cheaper for them to send in Sheriff Officers to freeze the funds than to have the court costs and argumants caused by looking to put in a liquidator.

    HMRC did not choose to go to a Tribunal re the big bill. Instead, after HMRC raised assessments, Rangers appealed. Until the appeal is determined, that money is not due, and therefore HMRC cannot try to enforce payment of a bill not yet formally owed. They cannot do anything like seek a liquidator’s appointment re the big bill till the FTT(T) passes judgement and the time for appealing goes past.

  29. Jonnybhoy says:

    Johnobhoyo- you must be all sorts of stupid to go somewhere that you feel is ripping you off – deflection aside, none of what you have posted makes any difference to what is coming RFC are shaping up to do one of two things – Cheat the taxpayer and phoenix into newco or cheat the taxpayer and be asset stripped into oblivion.

    This blog is one of the very few places that this shameful behaviour is being exposed

  30. v says:

    looks lke someone is determined to divert this blog up a blind alley again

  31. Auldheid says:

    Johnobhoyo says:

    04/11/2011 at 11:13 pm

    Interesting that you have not argued against the principle of administration mentioned but resort to name calling.

    It suggests to me that you are either a Celtic supporter whose dislike for Celtic’s custodians is so strong you would rather see Rangers succeed in escaping the full consequences of their maladministration, than see their demise vindicating the way Celtic have chosen to administer Celtic, not to mention denying any impact on Celtic (and other clubs) of Rangers maladminstration. Either that or you are not actually a Celtic supporter.

    Check the EBT and then debt figures. Read the post by BRTH on Rangers dropping EBTS in 2007 but instead of making some provision by putting money aside to pay their taxes, they embarked on a programme of rising debt to pay players rather than meet their potential tax liability.

    If my point has no substance it will die, if it has, it will become mainstream.

  32. evens says:

    @Stunney

    Didn’t realise you were a non-UK resident! That’s you off the hook then 🙂

    To be honest, these things are usually best left to close friends and/or family to sort out anyway.

  33. Another OA enters the fray says:

    As a long-standing follower of this blog (and one who considers oneself as particularly intelligent), I acknowledge and thank RTC and the learned contributors in their collective efforts to maintain insightful and balanced comment and analysis. However, I believe it worthy to now impose my considered and reasoned opinion in light of recent developments on this particular thread – Johnobhoyo is indeed a ‘rainjurs man’.

  34. Auldheid says:

    Paul McConville says:

    04/11/2011 at 11:24 pm

    If you check back I did ask who was going to make the judgement because I realise the stomach to do so does not exist, that does not mean the point is invalid.

    As long as the Celtic support have a good idea of what has taken place in order to make balanced judgements of why the club are where we are and what we have been up against and so what we have to deal with in future, I’ll take that.

  35. tomtom says:

    Johnobhoyo,

    I take your point(s) regarding Desmond and O’Brien, however they are individuals. The main thrust of this blog has concerned the actions of the entity that is Rangers Football Club. That we delve into the murky world that is Craig Whyte is because we are discussing his input (and more likely output) to the proceedings. Let’s stick to the main issue here without distractions. There will be time enough for recriminations against others, maybe you could start your own blog and we could all contribute out thoughts and wisdom.

  36. Trickeymickey1888 bring back the Jungle says:

    Jhonobhoyo is a recent poster on CQN causing all sorts of mayhem accussing posters there of being fools and idiots who are acting like sheep and of being board puppets, he comes across as being very childish and tends to act like “your traditional pub supporter” he also tends to deride and ridicule certain well respected posters on CQn as well

  37. tomtom says:

    “our” thoughts and wisdom.

  38. droid says:

    Can anyone explain page 3 of this –

    https://rangerstaxcase.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/rangers-security-charge-change-11_11.pdf

    Why is the catering mentioned? Is it a mistake? It looks like it has been left in from the earlier document dealing with the mortgaging of the catering services.

  39. droid says:

    RTC is it time to check matching IP addresses again?

  40. thegreenbhoy says:

    Has anyone at all alluded to the fact/possibility that if a new company is formed they will not be allowed to be called Rangers as UEFA insist this is not possible as Fiorentina had to play under the name Firenze (italian for Florence) for 2 years until they bought the name back and got approval from UEFA that they could change the name back, What would the name be for 2-3 years and would they buy back the name? They cannot buy the history with the name though

  41. thegreenbhoy says:

    sorry RTC I forgot to add a ho hum and several laughs at the end of my post however need to add it is a serious post ho hum

  42. droid says:

    re 11:56 –

    https://rangerstaxcase.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/63771099-rangers-mg01s-02-09-11.pdf

    On page one box 4 there is a statement about all liabilities owned jointly or severally, is there a suggestion of co-ownership here?

    Mr Whyte has now turned to Close Leasing twice will there be a third?

  43. Private Land says:

    tomtom says:

    04/11/2011 at 11:47 pm

    Johnobhoyo,

    I take your point(s) regarding Desmond and O’Brien, however they are individuals. The main thrust of this blog has concerned the actions of the entity that is Rangers Football Club. That we delve into the murky world that is Craig Whyte is because we are discussing his input (and more likely output) to the proceedings. Let’s stick to the main issue here without distractions. There will be time enough for recriminations against others, maybe you could start your own blog and we could all contribute out thoughts and wisdom.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    I think your wasting your time tomtom. Don’t think we could paint a red neck on Jhohnnyobhoyho 🙂

  44. Private Land says:

    Johnobhoyo says:

    04/11/2011 at 11:23 pm

    Privateland – any comments on these claims about our very own Kaiser, or does your moral compass take a back seat when matters more close to home are divulged:
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Godwin’s law alert!!! My moral compass wins again 🙂

  45. rab says:

    Droid

    Your contribution to this blog is commendable, not that i can make heads or tails of the legalese contained in the documents you link, but please accept this damning with faint praise in the spirit it is intended. 😀

    Communication over

    Shutdown initiated.

  46. Private Land says:

    It’s been a slow few days, and although I laughed heartily as more youthful times were recalled, I was pleasantly suprised to find how many of my er, senior contemporaries are involved in this blog 🙂

    Unfortunately a slow news week has also given time to the purveyors of whataboutery and apologists for the MBB and his organistaions efforts to stop major public projects in the education and health sectors.

    Consequently, I am retreating for a few days to catch up on all of my marking so my young charges can complain to me about my part in their lack of progress.

    Please God don’t let anything major happen until Wednesday.

  47. Private Land says:

    organistaions = organisations. And so to bed ………..

  48. Private Land says:

    organisations = organisation’s. Definitely time for kip 🙂

  49. Johnboy says:

    Johnobhoyo is a Rangers fan. That much is evident.
    I also suspect he is earning a crust from a PR firm for posting here. Or is simply deranged.
    No matter what, he is fooling nobody.
    Yossery, on the other hand, is just a poor man’s glasnost, or perhaps his wife.
    Until RTC decides to take action, I will simply be scrolling past their banal, ill-informed, trolling posts.
    Save yourself the high blood pressure, guys and gals.
    Just scroll on.

  50. Paulie Walnuts says:

    Johnobhoyo

    More by accident than design, you are actually closer to the truth than you know. Whyte’s plan was indeed to defer dealing with the small tax bill on the basis that there was a finite amount of money and it would make far more sense to try to do a global deal on everything. But he accepted a binding contractual obligation to pay the small bill which he has immediately reneged on. More importantly HMRC would not let him defer it and arested the money. The money is now gone from Rangers. The only question is whether it goes to HMRC or to the administrator or receiver of Rangers. HMRC will be able to get it long before the big tax case is decided. The only reason for not paying it is because he wants to leave open the possibility of it going to an administrator or receiver ahead of HMRC.

%d bloggers like this: