UEFA License: Rangers to appeal “wee bill”


In the current storm over whether the SFA should have granted Rangers a UEFA license for this season (and possibly denied Celtic a chance at qualifying for the Champions’ League), sources within Ibrox have confirmed that Rangers are planning to file a late appeal of the “wee tax case” bill related to the Discounted Options Plan.

This bill and the related interest- amounting to £2.8m- had been agreed by the club. Rangers had even paid £500k previously to prevent court action. (The bill for penalties related to this scam had not been agreed and can be seen as a separate matter for now).

Normally a company has 30 days to appeal a tax assessment. We know that that any appeal now is very late. The question is: why appeal now?

It would certainly serve to provide a tissue for their friends in the media to hide behind. Stories can be planted with the usual suspects that “the bill is being appealed so it does not count”.

However, the point at issue here is the status of this bill on 31 March. I do not know the answer, but it should be a simple question with a simple answer: was this bill overdue on that date?

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.

297 Responses to UEFA License: Rangers to appeal “wee bill”

  1. yakutsuki says:

    Thanks for a great blog RTC! I’ve read it for quite a while now.

    I feel reluctant to post my thoughts and feelings on the case, and on club dignity though.
    It’s very annoying and hurtful to be dismissed as paranoid, especially in my own case of half a century of being the victim of bigotry and discrimination. If you complain, you’re accused of playing the victim! Unbelievable.

    Some folk may think it’s ok to attack and condemn other’s beliefs as long as you put a wee ‘smiley’ in there. It’s just banter then, right?

    You know bigots don’t always bang drums and play flutes. Some don’t want to really identify
    themselves, they are quite crafty, insidious in fact.

    Can anyone enlighten me about my paranoia, this mental condition that’s allegedly rife within the Celtic support? Maybe I was drawn to the team due to my mental state, or perhaps it set in through osmosis by standing in the old jungle for too long?

    If I was to claim Aberdeen fans suffer from bipolar disorder; Hibs fans are balder than most, or going to watch Stranraer too often gives you ingrown toenails, I would be condemned as ridiculous, absurd and quite rightly so.

    So why dismiss Celtic fans claims as paranoid ramblings? Remember, no fire=no smoke!

    If there is an element of paranoia and a victim mentality within a community, do you never wonder why?

    Try being on the receiving end for half a century, maybe you’d change your mind?

    Don’t be fooled bloggers, as long as some pander to the patronising put downs, it will continue.

    Sorry to ramble, and off topic. That’s what happens when you don’t post regular I guess.

  2. Adam says:

    I may have missed this part, but are we sure Rangers are appealing the initial amount. My understanding was that the initial amount was getting released and the £1.4m was getting appealed. Also, my understanding is that a notice of appeal was put in against the £1.4m a while back but that was 3rd hand information so not a great source.

  3. Adam says:

    paul says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:11 am
    The question that puzzles is why GT felt able to sign off the accounts previously, as Johnston had said the big tax bill was an ongoing dispute and was therefore known about, yet now feel unable to validate the figures.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    The first hearing took place after the last accounts were signed by GT. At that point, any letter from the legal team would have been taking the firm stance that “Rangers will win this case”

    GT will be asking for an update and if Thornhill is less confident, then GT would push for a provision in the accounts.

  4. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Hugh

    The point is the timeline. The application to halt the transfer of funds has immediate effect once served on the bank and HMRC and can’t be dealt with until the first hearing for that application. It goes something like this. Monday, lodge application for late appeal to FTT. Tuesday, lodge application to Sheriff Court to stop the transfer on basis that FTT application is under way and serve this on Bank and HMRC on Wednesday. Money transfer halted. 6 weeks from now, first hearing on the Sheriff Court action. It really doesn’t matter if the FTT bomb out the request on the Thursday, you’ve bought the six week window. I say six weeks as, with Christmas coming up, court business will be delayed. It may well be late January before the hearing re the Sheriff court matter

  5. paul says:

    Irrespective of when the hearing took place the tax dispute was a known, no QC worth the name is going to be giving anyone a disclaimer.

  6. Adam says:

    paul – its not a disclaimer. Its simply an opinion to say they feel they have enough evidence to win the case, without prejudice.

  7. SteviefromBelfast says:

    Whenever the SFA confirmed they were looking at the “fit & proper person” stipulation during the week I thought it was a very significant development. It means that Whyte is now fighting a war on two fronts. His big war (the financial one) is the one that will bring him and Rangers down however the SFA one will provide an unwlecome distraction if not in fact inflict damage.

    I wont even pretend to understand the legal/financial aspects of this latest move so I cant comment on that. However I do think this appeal is all about fighting off the SFA and by extension Uefa.

    Earlier in the week I posted that the SFA were in an awkward position. Do they still pass Whyte as ‘fit & proper’ and then leave themselve open to widespread criticism (or may even some sort of liability claim) if he is proved anything but down the line? Or do they try and dump him now and save some sort of face – and their asses.

    I think they have went for the second and are now looking for anything to hang Whyte by. I suspect they were told in March that the wee tax bill was going to be paid and accepted that at face value. Whyte has not paid the bill and he is now trying to go with the “but I’m appealing it line”.

    Thats the only logic I can see inthis situation. However I keep reminding myself that we shouldnt look for logic in the workings of Craig Whyte.

  8. Adam says:

    I really cant see how the SFA can/will not pass him, as uncomfortable as it may seem. A director with a disqualification dated 11 years ago would be difficult to justify in my opinion. I dont think anything will come of the SFA investigation.

  9. Hugh McEwan says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:27 am

    ——————————————

    Thank you, I understand what you are saying.

    I think my point is that this is of no practical use to Rangers. They will not be allowed an appeal, in the unlikely event they are then they will lose. This can only cost the club money, and whilst it is ongoing the money will still be arrested. So it will be of no use to them.

    I can see that if the tribunal accepts the appeal then that might help them with the European licence, as there would not be a debt (that debt) at the end of December, however that is only if the appeal is accepted. Paying the bill would also do away with that debt. I imagine all that really matters is that the appeal is not rejected prior to 31st December and that achieves the same end.

    I suppose that’s the point, if they try to do it this way. They get to remove the debt from the process (European Licence) whilst at the same time holding the money in the bank until say the end of January. That kills two birds with one stone. The money is potentially available to the receiver / administrator until the end of January. Whilst at the same time removing that particular issue with regard potential licences.

    The idea that it is totally vexatious to both the Court and to the Tribunal is probably a matter of little import to Mr Whyte. He is protecting his position and nothing else matters, including future.

  10. MJR88 says:

    Interesting point made by Paul Murray.

    “In addition, the bulk of the current playing squad, one of the strongest in recent times, was assembled at significant cost”

    So the choice was simple.
    1-To continue spending every penny they didn’t have during the flush UEFA final/CL years to ensure a high risk of the club going under is maintained
    Or
    2-Live within their means, wipe out the lloyds debt with Champions L money and take the hit on the field for a couple of seasons-but survive.

    As PM states it was spend spend spend with no regard for the consequences or future downfall of the club. The win at all costs culture that has been running through the veins of Ibrox for many years will ultimately be the root cause of its collapse.

  11. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    Sorry guys, I’m kind of thinking out loud here……….

    If Whyte is not successful in delaying the £2.8m HMRC arrestment leaving the accounts; then I stand by 5th December (Monday) as the day Rangers go into Administration/Liquidation/Receivership.

    If he is successful in his delay, then Rangers may be able to limp on until player sales in January bring in enough cash to keep them afloat until they lose the case and Whyte is able to (quite rightly) blame the old regime for sending Rangers down the insolvency path. So the “event” may not happen until – circa season end.

    However, another reason for the delay is simply to keep that cash in the pot for when a receiver as apointed and Whyte can get his hands on it, although if that were the case, why not just pull the plug now?

    OR… Has the gathering of momentum: questioning the SFA’s issuing of a Euro license to RFC; despite being in receipt of a bill to a tax authority; pannicked Whyte into now appealing it, in an attempt to say the bill was not technically due when the SFA granted RFC their Euro license?

    ——-

    Is my limited grasp of this, on the right track, anyone?

  12. Brian_Damage says:

    As this saga gets murkier and murkier I am increasingly surprised at how Lloyds pushed through this sale to a guy who appears to be an out and out crook.

    It appears that they couldn’t give a stuff about the past record of MBB (how much checking did they really do on him?), nor the fact that RFC potentially owe HM Government £50m+ in unpaid taxes. Just as long as they got their loan repaid that’s all that matters.

    As Mr surrender no admitted, Lloyds were the ones who made sure that Sir dodgy sold up for 100 pennies.

    It looks like they’ve got their money by hook and from a crook, and will leave behind an almighty mess which will see the taxpayer massively out of pocket.

  13. Hugh McEwan says:

    A bad day for the laptop loyal says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:46 am

    ———————————

    See my last (based on previous explanations by Onx3), I think the potential appeal is more likely to do with next seasons licences. By doing this he can potentially achieve two ends. Keeping the money in the bank (available to a receiver / administrator) and getting the existing debt out of the equation. All he has to do is lodge the appeal and ensure it isn’t rejected prior to 31st December. Then the argument to the SFA is that there is no debt to the tax authorities (well not that one).

    It seems they had there cake last year by saying they had agreed how they would pay it, and are having the same cake this year by saying it is under appeal so doesn’t count. It really does beggar belief.

  14. Adam says:

    Not sure what Lloyds had to do with it Brian. They were a creditor. When you sell your house to pay your mortgage off, the bank couldnt give a monkeys if you are selling your house to Jack the Ripper. They just want their money.

  15. SteviefromBelfast says:

    Adam I would tend to agree that the SFA would now struggle to claim that a disqualification set 11 years ago would be sufficient grounds to oust a guy off the board of a club he owes. However I suspect that now want to wash their hands off him and will be looking for any excuse(s) they can find. Such as failure to disclose said disqualification and maybe failure to pay wee tax bill – and anything else they can find. Hence Whyte trying to cover his ass for not paying the wee tax bill.

  16. paul says:

    It’s a disclaimer, no auditor is going to sign anything like that off unless someone the QC writes cast iron opinion. Again why did they sign of previous accounts when this was a known.

  17. Brian_Damage says:

    So Adam, if say a Paul Ferris type was the one to offer a deal to lloyds that would be alright then? I know in the world of high finance morals are often left in the gutter, but Lloyds appear to have sold out to a guy who has very little intention of paying legitimate bills the taxman is owed.

  18. paul says:

    Off even.

  19. Bawsman says:

    This is great. Becoming even better as they’ve started to ship points.

    HMRC must be getting ever so narked at the MBB, I imagine any slack they might just have been given has vanished.

    Oh well. 😉

  20. paul says:

    According to Johnstone on the bank, Mr Johnston said: “Let me paraphrase, I was told that if I stood in the way of this deal happening, they said we’re gonna cancel your credit line tonight.”

  21. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:46 am
    ————————————————————————–

    A late appeal now does not change the fact of the money being due earlier in the year. Thus back to the discussion as to when the letter with the bill was opened – before or after 31st December 2010. In any event, the appeal formally does not stop the money being due until HMRC or the FTT accept the appeal for consideration, although late.

    I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that the present Rangers will be in position to take part in European football next season, do they? In which case, what is the point to jigging about with tax bills being due or not?

    The simplest (ha!) explanation is that the venture capitalist, who has a track record of coming into distressed companies and either (a) selling them on for a profit and more commonly (b) selling off the assets, charging fees and interest and thus making a profit, is looking to carry out Plan B here too. If the plan suggested is carried through, then the £2.3 million does not go to HMRC till the end of January at the earliest. Rangers can sell some players for cash down (as instalments don’t interest him) and therefore there will be a large pot of money, together with the remaining assets to meet the bill due to the former Wavetower.

    The Debtors (Scotland) Act porocedure allows the debtor to apply for release of the arrestment on the ground that it is “unduly harsh”. This can be done at any time up to transfer of the funds to HMRC and stops that happening till the case is heard. Mr Whyte has, I think, brilliantly found a way to avoid paying a bill which was (a) admitted to be due and (b) for which the money had been taken out of his control.

    This answers the question as to why he did not simply mandate the funds to HMRC once arrested! It is also entirely consistent with how he seems to have been dealing with bills recently.

  22. Adam says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:37 am (Edit)
    I really cant see how the SFA can/will not pass him, as uncomfortable as it may seem. A director with a disqualification dated 11 years ago would be difficult to justify in my opinion. I dont think anything will come of the SFA investigation.
    ___________________________________________________
    You might be right, but them’s the rules.

    If the SFA don’t want to bank someone 11 years after the event, they should change their rules. The problem will happen if their feet are held to the fire and forced to apply their own rules. Which member club would do that?

  23. Hugh McEwan says:

    Bawsman says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:02 am

    This is great. Becoming even better as they’ve started to ship points.

    HMRC must be getting ever so narked at the MBB, I imagine any slack they might just have been given has vanished.

    Oh well. 😉

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

    What seems clear is that Rangers’ future relationships with HMRC and probably anyone else is of little import just now.

  24. Adam says:

    Brian_Damage says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:01 am
    So Adam, if say a Paul Ferris type was the one to offer a deal to lloyds that would be alright then? I know in the world of high finance morals are often left in the gutter, but Lloyds appear to have sold out to a guy who has very little intention of paying legitimate bills the taxman is owed.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Brian. Lloyds are a shareholder in MIH. They were a creditor of Rangers. David Murray made the decision to sell to Craig Whyte. The only involvement Lloyds would have had would have been to say sell sell sell to Murray. As i said, a creditor only looks for their money back. They dont care how they get it, as long as its legal of course.

  25. Bawsman says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:02 am (Edit)
    This is great. Becoming even better as they’ve started to ship points.

    HMRC must be getting ever so narked at the MBB, I imagine any slack they might just have been given has vanished.

    Oh well.
    _____________________________________________________
    Bollocks! Whyte said that after the FTT they will sit down with HMRC and negotiate any amounts which have been assessed. Easy. It is all just a charade to get a precedent or something like that. 🙂

  26. Brian_Damage says:

    Very good and clear explanation Paul McConville. If your theory is correct does this mean MBB will have to go into receivership some time in January?

  27. Brian_Damage says:

    Adam – I’ll repeat the question: you would have no problem with lloyds selling up to a figure like Paul Ferris. Is that right?

  28. Adam says:

    paul says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:05 am
    According to Johnstone on the bank, Mr Johnston said: “Let me paraphrase, I was told that if I stood in the way of this deal happening, they said we’re gonna cancel your credit line tonight.”
    _______________________________________________________________________

    First thing – thats not relevant to the point being made about Lloyds having any obligation post/during the sale of Rangers
    Secondly – his statement is nonsense as they couldnt cancel it “tonight”
    Thirdly – this is a guy who on the same programme said “surrender. No” 🙂

    Its part of the smoke and mirrors ploy.

  29. Adam says:

    Brian_Damage says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:11 am
    Adam – I’ll repeat the question: you would have no problem with lloyds selling up to a figure like Paul Ferris. Is that right?
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Lloyds didnt sell us. David Murray sold us. Lloyds were a creditor. They just wanted their money. Not sure whats difficult to understand about that tbh.

  30. SteviefromBelfast says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:58 am
    ———————————————————————

    The SFA will not take action against Mr Whyte. It may be that they are “investigating” to be seen to be doing something. It may be that it is all part of the “evil Celtic conspiracy at the head of the SFA” which seems to concern some people. 🙂

    If they did do so, (a) they cannot force him, or his company, to divest thmselves of Rangers (b) they cannot force him to stop being a director of the parent company and (c) this would be a court case Mr Whyte would stand a great chance of winning!

  31. TheBlackKnight says:

    Here’s a wee theory (conspiracy)

    The Whyte Knight knows for a FACT when the wee bill was delivered / received. If this date is prior to the 31/03/2011 then it does look suspiciously like collusion and deception on the part of the SFA/ RFC old guard.

    So, if this were to be true and faced with certain ‘difficulties’, the Whyte Knight offers up a ‘CALL MY BLUFF’. You don’t play ball and I will appeal the wee bill (in it’s entirety) as that will clearly show when the bill arrived and who knew about it.

    Nothing to see here, moving on!

  32. Brian_Damage says:

    Adam come on now. I think we all know that lloyds were the de facto owners of rangers for some time before the sale to MBB. Smith admitted as much a few years ago. Lloyds were the ones who told dodgy to sell up, and it was their decision.

    In any event it is a moot point. They forced the sale through to an out and out chancer who seems hellbent on paying as little tax as possible.

    If things really do go pear shaped for RFC and some kind of admin/receivership event takes place then IMO Llloyds will have played a part in the whole sorry mess.

  33. Brian_Damage says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:09 am
    —————————————————————

    It all depends on when the various hearings there might be regarding the arrestement take place. If the argument is that the process has been defective, the Debtors (Scotland) Act says the hearing must take place within 8 weeks.

    If it is the “unduly harsh” argument, there is no time limit set down, but as we have seen, it is possible, legitimately, to string court cases out eg the big tax appeal.

    I think the Court of Session interdict angle is least likely because of the speed of any hearing (potentially in the coming week).

    An FTT hearing to determine if the appeal should be permitted, although out of time, would, I suspect, be months away.

    It would make sense for him to make it to January for the player sales, to keep the £2.3 million and then to appoint a receiver before the January wages go out, but if he gets longer as a result of such machinations, he might decide to run a bit further. If maximising the cash at the bank is his concern then January it would be. (THIS IS NOT A PREDICTION!!! It is merely a possibility.)

  34. Hugh McEwan says:

    Paul McConville says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:22 am

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

    Bearing in mind the longer things get strung out the nearer it gets to April and HMRC being able to demand security from any potential NewCo for direct taxes in addition to indirect ones.

    Almost certainly not Craig Whyte’s concern though.

  35. Paul McConville says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:22 am (Edit)
    ________________________________
    I think Whyte will do anything to survive to the FTT where the previous board can be blamed. If it was simply a matter of maximising cash, Whyte could have had a firesale in the summer and gone for liquidation immediately.
    He clearly does not want to be blamed for RFC going under.

  36. paulmac says:

    Adam says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:14 am

    Brian_Damage says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:11 am
    Adam – I’ll repeat the question: you would have no problem with lloyds selling up to a figure like Paul Ferris. Is that right?
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Lloyds didnt sell us. David Murray sold us. Lloyds were a creditor. They just wanted their money. Not sure whats difficult to understand about that tbh.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Deflection..

    The question asked is…would you have an issue with David Murray selling to Paul Ferris?

    On the point of who sold rangers…you’re attempting to be pedantic. So lets see if we can be pedantic..

    It was MIH that sold rangers…we could say due to pressure exerted by Lloyds because of the controlling element they held within rangers and to a greater extent MIH.

    So was it David Murray who actually sold Rangers or was he just the patsy asked to sign a bit of paper or find the club placed in administration.

    As AJ stated on the BBC documentary regarding the the phone call he received from the bank…threatening administration..and as SDM told him…it’s to late there is nothing we can do!

  37. jonny says:

    I don’t see why CW appealing the small tax case would have any bearing on this seasons CL/EL license as if they are in administration they would not be allowed in anyway or am I wrong

  38. Hugh McEwan says:

    jonny says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:26 am

    It would seem this is primarily to keep the money in place for as long as possible. However if it also allows them to preserve the possibility of a European licence that is an added bonus.

  39. paul says:

    His statement isn’t nonsense, the bank any bank can cancel at a moments notice, your ludicrous assertion “thats not relevant to the point being made about Lloyds having any obligation post/during the sale of Rangers” is nothing more or less than trolling.

  40. Alba Bhoy says:

    Manila @ 6.09 and again at 6.11 – that was brilliant. Nearly choked on my porridge due to laughter.

    RTC – this blog makes for wonderful reading. Big congrats to you and to those of your (ir)regular contributors who make it so.

    However, entertaining reading as this all is, the problems Rangers face will be determined by facts.

    As Burns (Rabbie not Tommy) said, ‘facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed.’

    I fear we may have to wait some time yet before this is all resolved.

    Compensation being, the longer the wait the more articles and comments one gets to read 🙂

  41. Auldheid says:

    Hugh McEwan says:

    03/12/2011 at 9:52 am

    As a delaying tactic to get by UEFA rules the bits in bold have the potential to scupper this approach. It will depend on the SFA objective but if they want to pay hardball it gives them the power to do so.

    c) it has brought a legal claim which has been deemed admissible by the
    competent authority under national law or has opened proceedings with the
    national or international football authorities or relevant arbitration tribunal
    contesting liability in relation to the overdue payables; however, if the
    decision-making bodies (licensor and/or Club Financial Control Panel)
    consider that such claim has been brought or such proceedings have been
    opened for the sole purpose of avoiding the applicable deadlines set out in
    these regulations (i.e. in order to buy time),
    the relevant amount will still be
    considered as an overdue payable; or

    d) it has contested a claim which has been brought or proceedings which have
    been opened against it by a creditor in respect of overdue payables and is
    able to demonstrate t o the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant decision making bodies (licensor and/or Club Financial Control Panel) that the claim
    which has been brought or the proceedings which have been opened are
    manifestly unfounded.

  42. Hugh McEwan says:

    Auldheid says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:42 am

    Hugh McEwan says:

    03/12/2011 at 9:52 am

    As a delaying tactic to get by UEFA rules the bits in bold have the potential to scupper this approach. It will depend on the SFA objective but if they want to pay hardball it gives them the power to do so.

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

    There’s the rub, mate.

    Like any action being taken in relation to Whyte being fit and proper (and that is not just to do with declaring the disqualification) what’s the chances of the SFA wanting to play hardball.

  43. Blankety Blank Whyte Cheque Book but where's the pen? says:

    Just a thought…….a ‘what if’ kinda thought.

    RTC I believe it was your good self who intimated that as it was MIH \ Minty who were dealing with Thornhill and the FTT as the EBT schemes (scams) were not solely about RFC. So Whytey is not directly involved.

    Reason I ask is that as the FTT not only covers potential taxes due from RFC but also MIH, so by Minty pulling the strings and possibly do some damage limitation exercise for his companies and giving HMRC their pound of flesh, he may be able to do deflect a sizeable portion of monies due onto RFC and try and keep MIH clear of incurring liability and get HMRC off his back?

    I’ve possibly not put that scenrio down in black and white all that well compared to how others may have hypothesised, but my point is that if HMRC were told back in April \ May by Minty “right we’ll settle up this small tax bill shortly as part of the RFC club sale” in order to possibly get HMRC on side (and Whytey bought into this plan as part of the sale) …………….could Whytey’s ersing about and general crookedness in how he conducts his affairs now impact how HMRC may ultimately deal with MIH and the FTT yet to conclude?

    Could Whytey ultimately be pissing on Minty’s chips in a manner of speaking, and making dealings with HMRC a lot more difficult than hoped when the taxman pronounces what he wants paid and by whom?

    I just wonder if Minty might soon make some kind of statement soon, seeing as we’ve already heard from P Murray and A Johnston about how Whytey is not quite delivering on his alleged promises.

  44. Adam says:

    paulmac says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:26 am

    Deflection..

    The question asked is…would you have an issue with David Murray selling to Paul Ferris?
    ______________________________________________________________________

    In the name of the wee man 🙂

    The question was about Lloyds. Not David Murray. It just gets worse and worse 🙂

    To be clear.

    Would i have an issue with Murray selling us to Ferris. YES
    Do i have an issue with Murray selling us to Whyte. YES

    Do i have ANY ISSUES at all with Lloyds. NO. NAE. NONE whatsoever. They were a creditor. We owed them a lot of money. They did not sell us to Craig Whyte. David Murray did.

    Now before you reply, can i ask you to please carefully read back the way.

  45. Adam says:

    paul says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:33 am
    His statement isn’t nonsense, the bank any bank can cancel at a moments notice, your ludicrous assertion “thats not relevant to the point being made about Lloyds having any obligation post/during the sale of Rangers” is nothing more or less than trolling.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    It is nonsense. We had an agreement in place to 31st December 2011. They could not have cancelled it in April which was “tonight”

  46. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    A bad day for the laptop loyal says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:46 am

    Hugh McEwan says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:52 am

    Paul McConville says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:06 am

    Many thanks for the replies and explanaitions guys.

    At the risk of fawning, I will say that this site will be looked back upon in years to come as a reference point: The pivotal moment when old media and the perceived manipulation of it in Scottish Football (for example) was smashed by new, instant media and a bunch of folk putting their heads together to highlight, discuss and dismantle the ineptitude and/or perceived bias of the media and/or officialdom in Scotland.

    These are truly exiting times for me.

    I have to conceed that I have a vested emotional interest in the huniliation of RFC, should it be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they have acted illicitly to gain an unfair advantage.

    I suspect that a few “Journalists” will be rather uneasy at the realisation that the game is up.

    PS, RTC: Please write a book……

  47. Brian_Damage says:

    Adam – I’ll put it another way. Say dodgy wanted to sell RFC to person A, but Lloyds didn’t want him to sell to A, but wanted it sold to person MBB. Do you think person A would have been sold RFC?

    (BTW I am not saying that there was actually a person A out there, just imagining so.)

  48. Blankety Blank Whyte Cheque Book but where’s the pen? says:
    03/12/2011 at 11:07 am (Edit)
    ________________________________________________________
    I think you are making it too complicated,

    By controlling the case Murray is able to control access to files and other damaging data, but most of all is the well known human tendency to seek a middle ground.
    So if Rangers have been terrible and need to get hanged, drawn, and quartered, there will be a natural tendency to punish MIH less for any of its wrong doing. So, you would want these cases to be heard together.

  49. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    A bad day for the laptop loyal says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:46 am

    Hugh McEwan says:
    03/12/2011 at 9:52 am

    Paul McConville says:
    03/12/2011 at 10:06 am

    Many thanks for the replies and explanaitions guys.

    At the risk of fawning, I will say that this site will be looked back upon in years to come as a reference point: The pivotal moment when old media and the perceived manipulation of it in Scottish Football (for example) was smashed by new, instant media and a bunch of folk putting their heads together to highlight, discuss and dismantle the ineptitude and/or perceived bias of the media and/or officialdom in Scotland.

    These are truly exiting times for me.

    I have to conceed that I have a vested emotional interest in the humiliation of RFC, should it be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they have acted illicitly to gain an unfair advantage.

    I suspect that a few “Journalists” will be rather uneasy at the realisation that the game is up.

    PS, RTC: Please write the book……

  50. Adam says:

    Blankety Blank, im not sure the FTT will affect MIH greatly truth be told. I reckon legal EBT’s could have been used in MIH, but as has been said on many occasion, it just doesnt make sense in a football manner.

    I think the only people Whyte would be pissing on is RFC with such tactics.

%d bloggers like this: