Confidence Trick


Those with an interest in the outcome of Rangers’ appeal against HMRC’s assessments in the ‘Big’ Tax Case might be justified in feeling a little confused.  When the story first broke in April 2010, Alastair Johnston gave this statement to the media: Tax issues are never clear-cut but all I can say is we have taken a lot of legal advice on the issue.  I do not think it should be a material concern for us in the longer term but we can’t say for sure yet what might happen.”

Between breaths of fire and vitriol directed at former Rangers directors after Mark Daly’s recent BBC Scotland documentary, Craig Whyte said: “At this point the club’s advice from tax advisors has been that the club has a good chance of succeeding in the tribunal but it would be wholly irresponsible not to consider the potential consequences for the club should the decision be made against us”.

Yet an array of tax professionals say that if Rangers provided its players with side contracts assuring them that loans taken from an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) would not have to be repaid, then the club’s chances of succeeding in appealing the assessments in their possession would be very slim.

Opinions- it is (famously) all about opinions.  One opinion probably matters more than most.  It is that of Andrew Thornhill QC, Rangers’ Counsel in the EBT case.  He seems to be a little less bullish than Johnston and Whyte.  In correspondence with their legal expert, Rangers received more nuanced advice.  The following is an excerpt from internal Rangers communications prepared to inform Whyte about a range of matters:

No one would expect a lawyer to tell his client that a favourable outcome is guaranteed. Even this blog has always gone to pains to point out that there is no such thing as certainty in court cases. (Although Rangers may be destined to prove the old saw “the only sure things in life are death and taxes” correct on both counts). However, I would have expected more uplifting advice to have been communicated internally to justify the optimistic pronouncements from Ibrox.

This advice is tantamount to saying “there is definitely a possibility of winning the case”. I would agree! It is logically equivalent to “there is a non-zero probability of winning our case”.

Of course, the case is a bit more complicated than just Rangers versus HMRC.  As we have covered previously, the case involving the Murray Group Management Limited Remuneration Trust goes beyond just Rangers: it deals with several current and former subsidiaries of Murray International Holdings Ltd.  Each subsidiary is legally responsible for paying its own employment taxes and each will be held individually liable for any negative outcome from the case. Yet not all of the subsidiaries will have been guilty of the same scam as Rangers.

Those who have been reading all of the posts and replies on this blog (a monumental task these days) will understand that any cash that Sir David Murray withdrew from the trust might well be deemed to be a legal loan.  As Chairman, majority shareholder, and in effective control of MIH through most of the years in question, he would have had little reason to write himself a side letter saying that he did not need to repay any loans.  If this is what he has done, then he will likely have been within the operating limits established in the Dextra case.  So anyone seeking to provide ambiguous advice to a prospective buyer of Rangers FC might well point to grounds for optimism on aspects of the case involving the Murray Group Management Limited Remuneration Trust.  (I look forward to comment on this point from our unpaid team of legal experts!)  Yet, those familiar with the case cannot conceive of a possible defence in Rangers’ case. (Assuming that the club did indeed provide side-letters to players).

Is Thornhill speaking only to the Rangers case?  Was a sunny-side-up opinion procured to help smooth the sale of the club?  Did Whyte decide to make his move on the basis of a seemingly optimistic legal opinion that in fact says nothing at all?  Whyte’s purchase of Rangers seems to defy all logic and business experience.  We have to include the possibility that he has been legally duped.  Of course, the contract that sold Rangers to Whyte includes a gagging order preventing Whyte from commenting negatively on the previous owners.  So we are unlikely to learn if Whyte is experiencing any buyer’s remorse.

As the quote above also points out, the resumption of the case is near at hand.  Next week will see the closing stages of the case begin.  The window for speculation is fast closing and real answers to the mysteries of this case will start coming thick and fast.  The 8-12 week period from the conclusion of the case is realistic.  The stuff about “a period to discuss the affordability of any settlement” is not.  There is no stage in the formal process after the tribunal to negotiate.  The bill for the underpayment & interest (about £36m) will have crystallised and would be legally enforceable.  Rangers can appeal (through the MHL subsidiary of MIH) to the Upper Tribunal.  HMRC do not normally enforce payment if it will result in insolvency while an appeal is underway.  However, there has been a hardening of hearts recently, and in cases where it is felt that the appeals process is being abused to delay the inevitable, they will be more likely to enforce their legal right to demand payment shortly after the First Tier Tribunal (Tax).  HMRC can elect to do a deal at any time of their choosing.  However, a pennies on the pound settlement in the wake of recent publicity seems unlikely.  Public punishment of a Draconian nature might do more to fill the public treasury than any smattering of repayment which Rangers could muster.

The question remains whether Whyte can keep Rangers solvent long enough to divert blame for the disaster that is almost certainly about to befall Rangers.  A post-Big Tax Case fall will be so transparently the work of the previous management and owner that Whyte will not need to comment.  Falling earlier will leave Whyte with a lot of responsibility for Rangers’ problems, and he will not be able to openly throw any mud in the direction of the real culprit: Sir David Murray.

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.

1,193 Responses to Confidence Trick

  1. Hugh McEwan says:

    David Murray did not believe in helping other football clubs, particularly if they were liberty takers. Business is business after all.

    Just ask Airdrie.

  2. longtimelurker says:

    Slimshady says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:44 pm

    “Just ask yourself one question, if this was 10 years ago and the roles were reversed, what would Murray do?”

    Murray wanted us put out of the game, it’s on record somewhere.

    I read it recently either on here or on KDS.

  3. easyJambo says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:36 pm
    ———————————————–

    If it was intended that having been serving a ban at any time in the last five years was the trigger, it would say that clearly. Don’t blame the lawyers fo drafting what the client wanted!

    Mr Whyte had “served his time” by four years when he took over. Potentially there might be issues with football preventing someone in those circumstances becoming a director, where he could be a director of almost any other sort of company.

    Football is not known for havng a higher standard of probity than general business!

  4. Adam says:

    longtimelurker says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:49 pm

    Murray wanted us put out of the game, it’s on record somewhere.

    I read it recently either on here or on KDS.
    _______________________________________________________________

    I heard from a very good source, the exact opposite.

  5. Private Land says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:42 pm
    ——————————————-
    Glad to help spread enlightenment, which I am sure accords with the ethos of the late Bob Crampsey, who was HT when I was at school. He always gave the impression that he liked his football gig better than teaching, and, to be frank, who could blame him!

  6. Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:52 pm

    I heard from a very good source, the exact opposite.
    ————————————————————————————-
    You mean it’s not on KDS! 🙂

  7. Hugh McEwan says:

    Paul McConville says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:53 pm

    Bob Crampsey was rector when I worked there.

    I know you might find this hard to believe but Bob and i had words on a couple of occasions.

  8. Private Land says:

    longtimelurker says:

    08/11/2011 at 9:49 pm
    _____________________________

    I think you are correct with respect to DM, but he was delusional in that he thought Rangers were too big Celtic and the rest of Scotland anyway.
    However I would like to think that, despite some understandle urges on the part of PL et al, Celtic would not stoop to that kind of ill spirited level. If DM was an arse for thinking the way he did, so would we be if we responded in kind.

    There are good financial, sporting and moral reasons for asking a Newco to start at the bottom.
    One major fly in that ointment though is the predicament the authorities would be in if Rangers did not survive the season in administration. That could perhaps be seen as a reason to allow a Newco immediate SPL membership. It would also be a huge incentive for CW to pull the plug mid-season, since this would put the other teams in a spot regarding the ‘integrity of the competition’.

  9. cautious dave says:

    Adam,
    When are you starting your own blog or are you content with hi-jacking RTC’s? Maybe the new found fame from the FF brigades’ gone to your head?

  10. Auldheid says:

    Adam says:

    08/11/2011 at 6:36 pm

    Gwared it’s not irrelevant if somebody actually believes the EBT were happening during that period.

    Not withstanding that though, as pointed out, over 60% of trophies since the EBT were introduced have been won by the team with the lowest wage bill. There is simply no way of knowing what would have happened in my humble opinion.
    =================================

    The key factor in winning trophies is how much debt a club is prepared to enter to do so. This is the economics of modern football and a read at Soccernomics or Why England Lose gives an explanation.

    The theory of the two authors is borne out by a look at titles won and debt incurred from 2000 in Scotland.

    It is all in an article on CQN magazine issue three page 34, 35 and 36.

    http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/ (click on the mag and navigate to the pages)

    The EBTs allowed Rangers a quality of player that helped counteract the debt Celtic indulged in from 2000 (but that Celtic started to repay from 2004 onwards ) in both 2003 and 2005. Then in 2007 Rangers readiness to enter debt when they decided to reduce their usage of EBTs but instead rely on debt, rather than make some provison to start paying the back tax, shows the full impact of EBTs and debt on the destination of titles for both clubs from 2000.

    Rangers embarked on a path in 2007 that has brought them to where they now are. Football success but financial beggars, and if they escape paying any taxes due, thieves.

  11. Private Land says:

    Paul McConville says:

    08/11/2011 at 9:53 pm

    Private Land says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:42 pm
    ——————————————-
    Glad to help spread enlightenment, which I am sure accords with the ethos of the late Bob Crampsey, who was HT when I was at school. He always gave the impression that he liked his football gig better than teaching, and, to be frank, who could blame him!
    _________________________________________________________________________

    He also liked playing piano a lot as well 🙂
    It is alleged that Chic Murray’s role in Gregory’s Girl was based on His Bobness.

    Big Jim would not have approved up at Muiryhall Street though 😦

  12. Adam says:

    cautious dave says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:01 pm
    Adam,
    When are you starting your own blog or are you content with hi-jacking RTC’s? Maybe the new found fame from the FF brigades’ gone to your head?
    ____________________________________________________________

    “hi-jacking” – Care to explain dave ?

  13. longtimelurker says:

    Just thinking here back to when Celtic were ’90 minutes’ from going out of business. Those were really dark dark days in more ways than one.

    I recall that in the final week, before FMCC won the war it seem to be constantly raining and indeed it was when Dempsey made his proclamation on the steps of Celtic park that dark night.

    Personally that was about the lowest point in my life as a Celtic supporter but the weeks leading up to it were just as bad, like an illness in the family. I could barely go to work and was constantly watching the news on TV or listening to the radio or reading the record when the end came it was real fear that I felt as I didn’t know what would happen in the coming days, weeks or months.

    However I don’t recall one single club or player from any other club standing up and giving us some moral support, not one!

    And, I certainly don’t ever recall a single rangers supporter even mentioning anything about the state were were in.

    After the event I became aware of just how badly Celtic had been treated by the establishment, particularly Celtic’s bank.

    When Celtic won the double in 1988 at the end of the season there was about a £15k overdraught at the bank by the time McCann bought the club the debt to the bank was £5million which they were going to pull the plug for, unbelievable.

    Make no mistake there were plenty of people in football at the time who wanted us dead and those people are still about to this day.

    I remember when McCann finally got his feet under the table he said that Celtic couldn’t even pay the weekly milk bill at CP and this mob in the Southside are running up debts for over £80million and no-one outside of Celtic cyberspace is saying anything about that, I find this really shocking to be honest.

    Personally I hope the get all that’s coming to them and I sincerely hope that they go down the pan.

    GIRUT

  14. Tommy says:

    longtimelurker says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:49 pm

    “Just ask yourself one question, if this was 10 years ago and the roles were reversed, what would Murray do?”

    Murray wanted us put out of the game, it’s on record somewhere.

    ____________________________________________________

    In 1994 the Bank of Scotland was quite prepared to pull the plug on Celtic for its £7 million. The bank executives regularly wined and dined at Ibrox and were close friends of Murray. I believe both parties shared the same ludge. Murray quietly urged the bank to go ahead with its action whilst publicly declaring, “We need a strong Celtic”.

    When Fergus McCann appeared on the scene and rescued Celtic, Murray was fuming to say the least. In fact this changed Sur David completely. He became obsessed with the happenings at Celtic Park. Any time he had an audience at the Ibrox hospitality he would rant about McCann or the Celtic players. He called the then top striker ‘Pierre van Hoodwink’ because the player wanted a hike in his wages.

    I believe it was Murray’s obsession with a re-emerging Celtic that drove Rangers down the path to where they are today. The Laptop Loyal lauded Murray as a business genius, but I suspect he himself looked on with envy at how Fergus went about his task at Parkhead. In the end it was Minty who did the hoodwinking, both to the bears and to his pet hacks.

  15. Veritas says:

    Can I add a touch of realism to the avalanche of hypotheses, speculation, wishful thinking, spite, hypocrisy, bigotry, cant and general madness that envelops many posters on this blog? Informed opinion on Rangers’ fate overwhelmingly favours the worst case scenario being that the Ibrox club will go into administration, suffer a points penalty and stay in the SPL. That’s as bad as it gets or as good as it gets, depending on your hue. So spare us, please, the endless diatribes, moral outrage and what-ifs about outcomes that have no chance of ever materialising. Sorry to be a party-pooper but this blog, excellent in many ways, does sometimes feel like Fantasy Central.

  16. longtimelurker says:

    Tommy says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:08 pm
    longtimelurker says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:49 pm

    “Just ask yourself one question, if this was 10 years ago and the roles were reversed, what would Murray do?”

    Murray wanted us put out of the game, it’s on record somewhere.

    Great post Mate, thanks.

  17. Adam says:

    To be fair, both of those pieces are anecdotal that have no credence to the suggestion that Murray wanted Celtic out of business.

    Remember we are talking about a man who is constantly accused of trying to screw every penny and yet here we are 17 years down the road saying he would have got rid of his biggest rivals, despite living off the very rivalry for years.

    I appreciate im just another guy on the internet, but an ex Board Member of Rangers told me that Murray called an emergency Board meeting the day Celtic were hours from closure and a bail out package was one of many options discussed by the Board that day.

  18. easyJambo says:

    Paul McConville says: 9:51 pm
    If it was intended that having been serving a ban at any time in the last five years was the trigger, it would say that clearly. Don’t blame the lawyers fo drafting what the client wanted!

    Mr Whyte had “served his time” by four years when he took over. Potentially there might be issues with football preventing someone in those circumstances becoming a director, where he could be a director of almost any other sort of company.

    Football is not known for havng a higher standard of probity than general business!

    It was you yourself that used the word “Decision” in the original post. There is no mention of the word “Decision” in the SFA Articles. The quote I used was taken directly from the Articles.

    Craig Whyte may well have served his time when he took over, but I’m certain that the intention of the articles was to exclude those with a history of impropriety, i.e. by insisting on five clear years before consideration as a fit and proper person in a football context.

    I agree with your last comment though 🙂

  19. Hugh McEwan says:

    Veritas says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:13 pm

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

    So you reckon the tribunal ruling will be low enough for them to force a CVA.

    That’s in addition to the outstanding amount obviously. Say £3.7m to HMRC.

    So how much is it going to be. Tax, interest and penalties.

  20. longtimelurker says:

    RTC, can we has post from Stunney this as a sticky please?

    longtimelurker says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:38 pm
    Shameless repost for BHRT

    stunney says:
    06/11/2011 at 7:54 am
    Some readers may be interested in the following post, dated December 2009.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    I’ve posted these figures before, but after today’s statement by Johnston it seems apposite to do so again…

    Don’t know if it’s already been mentioned, but I noticed the line in today’s accounts [of RFC] that says:

    2009 2008

    Operating (loss)/profit (17,325) 641

    That means that on their ordinary operations they made a loss of 17.325m on turnover of 39.7m quid, as compared to a profit of 641k on turnover of 64.5m last year.

    Can I just say something?

    WOOOOOOF!

    Nae effing wonder Lloyd’s is running the shambolic disaster that is the Duke of Murrkymoonbeams’ legacy to the legions of cretinous dignified reptiles who’ll have to clean up the wreckage.

    Wanna know how brilliant Lord Dodgy of Skintmint has been at taking everybody’s dosh and then ratshafting them at the Zoodome for the last 15 years? Well, I’ve just gone through the figures,and here they are:

    LORD DODGY: THE WONDER YEARS 1995-2009

    2009
    Turnover 39.7m
    Loss for the year – 12.7m

    2008
    Turnover 64.5m
    Profit for the year 7.2m

    2007
    Turnover 41.8m
    Loss for the year -6.253m

    2006
    Turnover 43.483m
    Profit for the year 0.092m

    2005
    Turnover 34.480m
    Profit for the year 12.674m*

    * This figure was arrived at by counting a 15m gain due to ‘negative goodwill release’ from buying back NTL’s previous 15m investment in Rangers media rights for £1. Actual operations for the year produced a loss of 7.813m.

    2004
    Turnover 57.079m
    Loss for the year -5.939m

    2003
    Turnover 49.035m (as restated in 2004 accounts)
    Loss for the year -29.605m

    2002
    Turnover 44.812m
    Loss for the year -35.328m

    2001
    Turnover 47.033m
    Loss for the year -16.897m

    2000
    Turnover 51.695m
    Loss for the year -24.999m

    1999
    Turnover 35.526m
    Loss for the year -24.393m

    1998
    Turnover 32,526m
    Loss for the year – 0.800m

    1997
    Turnover 31,664m
    Loss for the year -20.513m

    1996
    Turnover 30.708m
    Profit for the year 2.256m

    1995
    Turnover 19.833m
    Profit for the year 0.455m

    TOTAL LOSSES 1995-2009 = 177.427m
    TOTAL PROFITS 1995-2009 = 22.677m

    NET LOSS 1995-2009 = 154.750m

    BoS and the Laptop Loyal that faciltated this carrot = Scandalous Masonic disgrace of the highest order.

    GIRFUT

    ———————————————————————————————

    So there we have it!

    And now Lord Dodgy has left RFC with a potentially liquidation-inducing tax liability.

    Still, not to worry, Viscount Whyte will make all negativity disappear faster than you can say arrestment on the dependence.

    Just like that.

  21. longtimelurker says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:15 pm
    To be fair, both of those pieces are anecdotal that have no credence to the suggestion that Murray wanted Celtic out of business.

    Remember we are talking about a man who is constantly accused of trying to screw every penny and yet here we are 17 years down the road saying he would have got rid of his biggest rivals, despite living off the very rivalry for years.

    I appreciate im just another guy on the internet, but an ex Board Member of Rangers told me that Murray called an emergency Board meeting the day Celtic were hours from closure and a bail out package was one of many options discussed by the Board that day.

    Aye and we’re talking about a man who signed judas ,not to break a 100 year old sectarian employment policy but to f@ck over Celtic.

    Make no mistake about it mate we were on our knees and he fecking loved that fact.

    Don’t even get me started on his ‘three teams’ pish! or his Tenner nonesense.

    Tried to save Celtic, who are you kidding?

    The only people who saved Celtic were Celtic men and women unlike you club who will lie and steal from anyone.

    Karma’s a bitch

  22. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    Longtimelurker, re-posting stunney’s RFC financial info….

    I recall Hugh Adam in 2002 unloading his shares in Rangers on the basis that “they were heading towards worthlessness due to David Murray’s unsatisfactory business methods.”

    From stunney’s figures, we can see that in 2002 Rangers operated at a £35m loss.

    It is little wonder then, that Hugh Adam went on to say “if rangers continue down their present track, their ultimate destination will be bankruptcy.”

    (Quotes from The Scotsman, 2002)

  23. Hugh McEwan says:

    Could people stop posting “Hugh Adam” it gives me the hives.

  24. Davythelotion says:

    The difference between the bunnet and minty was that the becapped one delivered exactly what he said he would: a stadium (bigger than Ibrox, hence Minty’s obsession with increasing capacity by filling corners, shrinking seats and the club deck); a decent team (‘…for every fiver…’); an academy system comparable to Ajax (Murray Park); a return to the club’s charitable roots (minty’s rangerstrust); a sale of shares to supporters (minty’s failed share issue); leaving the club better than he found it (CW buys minty’s 85% for £1).
    Minty got into a pissing contest and lost spectacularly.

  25. Adam says:

    “In 1994 the Bank of Scotland was quite prepared to pull the plug on Celtic for its £7 million. The bank executives regularly wined and dined at Ibrox and were close friends of Murray. I believe both parties shared the same ludge.”

    They were so close to David Murray in 1994 that we didnt even bank with them 🙂

  26. cautious dave says:

    Do I really need to explain Adam? Maybe hi-jacking is the wrong term. Hogging would perhaps be a better description.

    Personally I think your treatment on here has been a microcosm of Scottish football and wider Scottish society. Much respect and defense of the “decent Rangers fan” on a blog predominantly inhabited by Celtic fans. And quite right too! Where then can I find the reverse? Where can I play the lone Celt in amongst some friendly bears? It just doesn’t happen. I’ve tried.

    So other fans are respectful of decent rangers fans and other teams play by the rules. Different set of rules however for RFC and their fans. The game’s loaded.

  27. jbj712 says:

    PL & Paul McC

    On the topic of Bob C

    Have to say he was a pale imitation of proper heidie like “Big Jim” Breen at the original and best in the Brig ! – St Pats

    HH

  28. Adam says:

    longtimelurker says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:24 pm

    The only people who saved Celtic were Celtic men and women unlike you club who will lie and steal from anyone.
    _______________________________________________________________

    A fairly hyperbole statement.

    Im not allowed whitabootery as a comeback unfortunately 😦

  29. Private Land says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:03 pm

    Hugh McEwan says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:57 pm
    ———————————————————-
    I must confess that Mr Crampsey rarely made an appearance in the school corridors when I was there. He was ensconced in his office working away, and except for rare ventures out, when his gown was seen just rounding a corner, he generally only came out for riot control.

    I remember being in the big hall one wet afternoon when things became a bit rowdy. He, and the rest of the senior team, including Mr Hughes and Mr Dempsey, if I recall correctly, (this is some time ago) came in, told all the girls in the hall to leave, and had the doors locked. At that he proceeded to warn that we were one sound away from everyone in the entire hall being belted.

    As I had been sitting up the back reading HMS Ulysses, I felt rather offended by this manifest injustice. Luckily, the rest of the throng took the threat seriously, and we were allowed to file out back to our classes in silence. I suppose a mass belting might have opened the Region up to RSI claims from the belters!

    The humour of the Chic Murray character in Gregory’s Girl was not often, to my young eyes, on display in the Crampsey years.

    As far as your comment Hugh that you did not always see eye to eye with him, I can quite imagine that!

    And of course now, the old St Ambrose will shortly be replaced by the new school, built on the football pitches off the Townhead Road. The end of an era!

  30. Paulie Walnuts says:

    Just back from a busy day at my real job. Lots of posts. More heat than light at first sight and a bit of a slow news day.

    It is a bit rich for anyone to accuse Adam of trolling when the blog is littered with “Are you ashamed of your club, Adam?” type posts which no one could think were going to advance the discussion. His posts are consistently informative. He clearly has a considerable degree of accountancy expertise, and it is very important to have a contradictor to test each hypothesis. This is, I hope, a broad and tolerant church, and so it should remain.

    Duggie 73,

    “Burke was a fud”. Post of the season so far.

    Some minor news.

    1. McIntyre’s case was on the calling list the other day. For those who don’t follow the archaic and faintly masonic rituals of the Court of Session that means Rangers’ defences will be due by about this time next week, and the case will call in court for a preliminary hearing within no more than two weeks after that.

    2. Rangers have not entered appearance in the Levy MacRae challenge to the acceptance of their complaint. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have entered apearance but have rolled over and conceded that leave to appeal should be granted, thus accepting that is is strongly arguable that they did indeed get the decision wrong.

  31. Adam says:

    cautious dave says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:33 pm

    Do I really need to explain Adam? Maybe hi-jacking is the wrong term. Hogging would perhaps be a better description.

    Personally I think your treatment on here has been a microcosm of Scottish football and wider Scottish society. Much respect and defense of the “decent Rangers fan” on a blog predominantly inhabited by Celtic fans. And quite right too! Where then can I find the reverse? Where can I play the lone Celt in amongst some friendly bears? It just doesn’t happen. I’ve tried.

    So other fans are respectful of decent rangers fans and other teams play by the rules. Different set of rules however for RFC and their fans. The game’s loaded.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    Its the circumstance and nature of this blog that allows that to happen. It naturally draws the right people toward it and the stereotypical internet nut wont post on it for fear of being ridiculed.

    Those that do, in the main, are weeded out by RTC who deserves recognition for in the main keeping it real.

    I could take a number of Celtic fans on here into a huge company of Rangers fans and they would get the same respect many offer me on here.

    Prior to this particular blog, there were no examples of what you have just described.

    I dont buy into the Scottish society thing. Not any more. Not in a long while. And yes i know that doesnt suit some.

  32. gunnerb says:

    Veritas says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:13 pm

    Can I add a touch of realism to the avalanche of hypotheses, speculation, wishful thinking, spite, hypocrisy, bigotry, cant and general madness that envelops many posters on this blog?
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Patronising and insulting, please expand on and substantiate your “..informed opinion ” nonsense.Oh and you should consider a change of Moniker too.

  33. Hugh McEwan says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:34 pm

    longtimelurker says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:24 pm

    The only people who saved Celtic were Celtic men and women unlike you club who will lie and steal from anyone.
    _______________________________________________________________

    A fairly hyperbole statement.

    Im not allowed whitabootery as a comeback unfortunately 😦

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

    Really, when did that start.

  34. longtimelurker says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:34 pm
    longtimelurker says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:24 pm

    The only people who saved Celtic were Celtic men and women unlike you club who will lie and steal from anyone.
    _______________________________________________________________

    A fairly hyperbole statement.

    Im not allowed whitabootery as a comeback unfortunately

    You lot were given the chance mate but very few of you put your money into your own club as long as some other idiot (King, Lewis, etc etc) was throwing in the dosh that was fine as long as it wasn’t your fellow supporters dipping into their own pockets.

    Cetic supporters have always supported the club. McCann managed to sell £33million quids worth of his shares to us. I personally bought £1500s worth of McCann’s shares, the share certificate is lying up in the loft somewhere.

  35. paulmac says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:30 pm

    “In 1994 the Bank of Scotland was quite prepared to pull the plug on Celtic for its £7 million. The bank executives regularly wined and dined at Ibrox and were close friends of Murray. I believe both parties shared the same ludge.”

    They were so close to David Murray in 1994 that we didnt even bank with them 🙂
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I think you’re missing the point..

  36. Adam says:

    longtimelurker says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:41 pm

    You lot were given the chance mate but very few of you put your money into your own club as long as some other idiot (King, Lewis, etc etc) was throwing in the dosh that was fine as long as it wasn’t your fellow supporters dipping into their own pockets.

    Cetic supporters have always supported the club. McCann managed to sell £33million quids worth of his shares to us. I personally bought £1500s worth of McCann’s shares, the share certificate is lying up in the loft somewhere.
    _____________________________________________________________

    2 completely different scenarios.

    McCann was taking over from a regime who had bled the club dry. A regime who to use your own words, in the eyes of many, “lied and stole” The Celtic fans had had enough of them and a new guy was in town shining a bright light. The fans followed.

    David Murrays share scheme was simply a “Ive messed up, now bail me out”. Its little wonder that less than £5m was from fans.

  37. Adam says:

    Hugh – when i say “not allowed” i mean it just sets the hares running and the accusations of derailing the blog by some, so best that i just keep a wheesh in my peep, or whatever that saying is. LOL

  38. gunnerb says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:47 pm

    ….”David Murrays share scheme was simply a “Ive messed up, now bail me out”. Its little wonder that less than £5m was from fans.”
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    I suspect this may have a grain of truth…we shall see how willing the faithful are in the months ahead.Difficult economic times of course.

  39. Auldheid says:

    Paul McConville says:

    08/11/2011 at 9:15 pm

    Scottish football will not penalise Rangers for any misdeeds found to have occurred as regards tax in the past. The sin in football’s eyes is getting away without paying one’s dues.
    ==================================
    Sorry but that is not my understanding of penalties for entering administration what ever the form of the penalty.

    My understanding is the principle of deducting points underpins the natural justice of trying to compensate what is seen to be a club gaining an unfair advantage.

    What makes this case different is the time scale and nature of the unfair advantage sought. It could be argued that Rangers from 2000 to 2007 gained an advantage over their competitors by being able to pay their players more than they could otherwise afford. So that if it was broken down year by year the extra couple of million or so that they were able to put in players pockets each year helped them win titles they might not have. This only applied in 2003 and 2005 and the fact it might only be recognised in the coming weeks does not affect the underpinning natural justice principle of unfair advantage gained..

    Then from 2007 when the dependence on EBTs dropped Rangers switched to debt that is still owed to someone somewhere and is currently probably as high as it was in 2009 when it peaked at £31M. The point is that this debt is still on their books and the players it purchased are still playing in spite of the orginal potential debt from EBTs likely to present itself in the coming months not to mentioin the small tax bill still not being paid whilst their players are.

    This is not a current event we are dealing with here, it is historical lasting 10 years and the natural justice behind points deduction requires it be judged and dealt with in that light.

    Right I’m off to watch Breaking bad.

  40. Adam says:

    Just as an aside, why would the Celtic fans on here go on a Rangers fans forum ????

  41. ger1888 says:

    We need a wee titbit of salacious news from up the marble staircase RTC. Things are getting a wee bit tetchy on here, with once again poor Adam in the gunsights of most of the barbed comments. As Paulie Walnuts said, this is a “broad and tolerant church” and for the betterment of this blog should remain so.

  42. Adam says:

    This is in reference to the posts about Follow Follow earlier, just to explain.

  43. ger1888 says:

    Adam, it is my firm belief that follow follow is made up of at least 75% ” timposters “

  44. ger1888 says:

    and i should know, lounge access anyone ????

  45. Mark says:

    2. Rangers have not entered appearance in the Levy MacRae challenge to the acceptance of their complaint. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have entered apearance but have rolled over and conceded that leave to appeal should be granted, thus accepting that is is strongly arguable that they did indeed get the decision wrong.

    sorry Paulie can I just say re the above…..eh?

    I look forward and read fully about ten posters on here, and I love yer updates. But what was this one aboot?
    yours
    confused

    Adam, you fight the good fight sir I’ll give you that

  46. paulmac says:

    Tommy says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:08 pm

    In 1994 the Bank of Scotland was quite prepared to pull the plug on Celtic for its £7 million. The bank executives regularly wined and dined at Ibrox and were close friends of Murray. I believe both parties shared the same ludge. Murray quietly urged the bank to go ahead with its action whilst publicly declaring, “We need a strong Celtic”.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    To be honest Tommy…I will always be eternally grateful if that was true…as it catapulted FRGUS MCCANN into our club…and the rest they say is history..

    Without that decision to pull the plug..how long might the old board have tried to stagger on?

  47. Hugh McEwan says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:49 pm

    Hugh – when i say “not allowed” i mean it just sets the hares running and the accusations of derailing the blog by some, so best that i just keep a wheesh in my peep, or whatever that saying is. LOL

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

    It is derailing the blog though, Adam.

    Whether you like it or not, this blog is called Rangers Tax Case. It’s about … Rangers tax case and because of where the blogger himself has taken it it is now also about Rangers debt and financial problems.

    It’s not to do with Celtic being “just as bad” or “the other side of the same coin”.

    That’s the thing, this is a remarkably popular blog, and not a website. it’s about what RTC posts and the comments people make about his blogs.

    When RTC decides that he will blog about other things and people want to discuss them then it will be about those things. If for example he chooses to juxtapose Rangers’ tax affairs with Celtic’s then it will presumably be fair game for the commenters to do likewise.

  48. cautious dave says:

    Sorry Adam but you’re wrong. This blog, as good as it is, didn’t invent reasoned internet debate. As a long time member of KDS and viewer of CQN there have frequently been rangers fans posting and treated with respect providing they are not on to troll and can provide reasoned debate. Would it surprise you that many of the posters on this blog are long time members of the aforementioned sites?

    Your falling into the Graham Spiers internet snobbery territory where anyone who posts on a internet message is assumed to be some kind of sectarian psycho.

  49. Paulie Walnuts says:
    08/11/2011 at 10:37 pm
    ——————————————————
    Thanks for the updates re the court lists etc.

    I see the McIntyre case was calling today. Now we await further developments. I wonder when someone will suggest that the calling list gives too much information.

    Interesting that Rangers taking no part in the Levy McRae v SLCC appeal. I can imagine that the L&M partners will, quite rightfully, be spitting feathers about that case, and I am sure they will do whatever is needed to clear their name as publicly as possible, especially as Mr Whyte is still maintaining they were wrong to act for Mr Bain.

    As Mr Withey of Collyer Bristow, who was responsible for the complaint being lodged, as I understand matters, is the Company Secretary who, presumably, is also responsible for the late lodging of the annual return, one wonders if Mr Whyte is concerned about his choice of lawyer, particularly as it was CB who picked Warners initailly to defend Rangers in the Bain case, a decison soon changed, but not before the damage had been done.

    (Only kidding Gary – I am sure you are top notch in all your work!)

    And PW, as you predicted, the L&M v Rangers case is off the lists for tomorrow – someone obviously remembered to send in the Joint Minute!

    I’m surprised reporters don’t spend more time looking at the court lists. For example, although I have not seen it reported anywhere, there are two TV personalities who are at the sharp end of a payment action to call later this week for an Options Hearing, in some court in Scotland, the action being at the instance of a builder. I am sure a tabloid could fill half a page with the story and a pic or two of the relevant parties.

    For example, in about 2000, when Kenny Dalglsih sued Celtic, the case was mentioned on the court lists about three weeks before there was ever any media coverage of it!

  50. Adam says:

    lol ger1888 – I just dont get it.

    My curiosity got the better of me there and i thought i would have a wee look at what was getting said but you need to join. Ach well.

%d bloggers like this: