A victim of our own success

In the last week, we have seen the final stage of the mainstreaming of the Rangerstaxcase story. With factional in-fighting among current and former executives of Rangers FC spilling onto the front pages of our tabloid press, even the most sceptical football fan will now understand that Rangers face a crisis that threatens their very existence. That much is a cause for some satisfaction. After ignoring this story for the best part of a year and a half, the mainstream media appear to be roused from their stupor. It would be difficult for anyone to deny with a straight face the role this blog has had in forcing the uncomfortable truth into the open.

However, the comments section of this blog has simply become unmanageable. With over 2,500 replies posted in a matter of five days, I do not have time to read them all. I have been struggling for a few months to contain potentially defamatory posts, but the numbers are simply overwhelming now. While I have had many kind offers to help share the burden, there are practical reasons for not taking them up.

I will try to provide a way to allow those who have built this site into something wonderful to continue posting their views, but I do not see the utility in this site becoming a general Celtic-based messageboard.  There are many excellent sites catering to this need already. It has never been my goal to ever be in competition with any of them.

It was perhaps inevitable that with the explosion of interest in this subject that the nature and quality of comments would change. At the risk of being seen to be elitist, it was the group of people who contributed content and analysis in the early months who made this site special. So I plan on providing a means to allow them to continue posting.  (Bear with me as I experiment with settings).

This would appear to be the best way to avoid the repetition and dilution of content. With fewer contributors, the ‘Old Guard’ and approved posters will find it easier to maintain a running theme. There will be a chance for the analysis and fact-finding that made this site popular can be retained.

Additionally, it would be important to provide a place for fans of all other Scottish clubs, especially Rangers supporters, who wish to engage in factual and/or informed speculation about events that are unfolding. Thus far, Rangers-based sites have blindly chosen positions without much analysis. Anyone wishing to engage in reasoned and informed discussion would be welcome to provide input, regardless of opinion.

I mean no criticism of those who see Rangers’ troubles as a source of amusement. There are simply lots of other places more suited to that type of comment. I am sure that keeping this blog as a staid and ‘rooted-in-fact’ environment will reduce its popularity. However, if we can revive the original spirit of the blog this will be a price worth paying.

Edit:  I am going to allow the old comment rules to continue for a while.

As for the most recent wave of insolvency rumours, I can confirm that Rangers had instructed their legal advisors to prepare for a possible filing at the end of the transfer window. However, I chose to sit on this story as it was likely to be misinterpreted. There are many tactical reasons why a company might want the option of filing on a given date, but might later choose to not go ahead. There are many factors that would affect Whyte’s decision to file- and the simple truth is that we do not have access to enough information to make any statement about a date when receivership or administration would become his best option.  Whyte could file tomorrow or several months from now. The exact date does not matter too much. All sides will have had ample time to prepare their positions and refine their strategies. The only certain outcome is that the country’s top law firms are going to be busy.

What we do know is that Scotland’s biggest football club is facing the biggest crisis in its 140-year history.  We have also seen the opening salvos in the battle to pick up the pieces of a post-liquidation Rangers. Most significantly, we have helped launch and shape the debate on how Scottish football would deal with a post-liquidation Rangers. We have called out the ‘presumptive close’ being attempted by those who have a vested in interest in a newco-Rangers recovering rapidly.

The case for thwarting all notion of sporting integrity and parachuting a newco-RFC back into the Scottish Premier League has not been made. Despite what Hugh Keevins might say, as observed by a couple of our regular posters, it seems that the only surviving SPL club that would face a significant reduction in revenue related to the loss of Rangers from the SPL would be Celtic. For every other club, there is a chance that the thousands who migrate towards Ibrox from towns across Scotland every other Saturday might show an interest in their local team. There would be a realistic hope of winning trophies. Those who do not wish to discuss a newco-Rangers earning its place in the top flight fairly, do not want to investigate the opportunities that may exist in re-ordering the game either.

This would all be easier to understand if we were watching top quality football being played by young Scotsmen in an atmosphere of optimism.  However, Scottish football has fallen progressively further and further behind the top-flight standards in the last 25 years. The idea that it is worth taking a chance on remaking our game is one worth at least some discussion.

Time-horizon is also a factor being ignored by the radio talking heads. While Celtic would undoubtedly face a dip in revenues in the short-run, a more competitive league in the future could see stands filled once again across this football mad nation. Even Celtic could see increased ticket sales and TV revenues in ten years time if 3-4 clubs were in a tight battle for the SPL title. If the men running the SFA lack the imagination to see the chance presented, then they need to be replaced. We should not forget about the risk of cynicism. If it is clear that a newco-Rangers will be nursed back to health by hook or by crook for short-term financial reasons, there will be little point in watching Scottish football thereafter. Why bother? There would not even be a pretence of fair competition. Is the financial risk of helping a newco-Rangers being considered?

A newco-Rangers that earns its place in the Scottish Premier League by promotion through the lower leagues will spare its fans the permanent ‘mark of Cain’ that would accompany not winning its place. A club that works its way up through the lower divisions could rebuild its record with pride and know that it deserves respect.

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.

616 Responses to A victim of our own success

  1. SBhoy says:

    In the event of having to declare a disqualification from acting as a Co.Director, there is, in my opinion, absolutely no dispute, that it would be 5 years from the end of the ‘ban’!!!

    1. What would be the point of having to declare this in (Whyte’s ) case, in the year 2005? He is banned, and cannot act as a Director.
    2.Declaring within 5 years of the expiry of the ban would allow the relevant authorities to have a look at behaviour having resumed a directorship.
    3. Why in the name of *&^% would he have lodged it with the stock ex? Is he claiming that he is unsure of the law?

    The man is, in my opinion, a rogue.

  2. SBhoy says:

    Slim ,snap

  3. gunnerb says:

    corsica says:
    06/02/2012 at 11:49 pm

    JoeMc says:
    06/02/2012 at 11:22 pm

    Corsica, seriously????

    If you attempted to buy shares on the Plus Market, rangers could not prevent you from doing so – those shares are publicly listed and therefore rangers have no control over who buys or does not buy those particular listed shares.
    I’m afraid they can. The transfer/sale of all shares are subject to the rules and regulations of the company and are at the discretion of the company. The company therefore retains the right to refuse to accept an application to purchase shares…I was surprised but it is there in their M&A. It’s not a problem as it revealed more to me than I probably would have got had I been successful. 🙂


    I am sure you were greviously upset Corsica .I suppose no trading would have been allowed by RFC leading up to their suspension on the AIM. It wouldn’t have been smart to allow any inquisitive types on board at that stage.

  4. paulmac says:

    Jim Farry’s lawyer says:
    06/02/2012 at 11:40 pm

    Now this really is a lawyer’s argument. If the SFA’s rules are so badly drafted that it is the former they may as well rip them up now! CW was disqualified, as I understand it, in 2000 for a period of 7 years. If the former applies (and this is no doubt what CW will be arguing) then on the day after his disqualification ended he could have become an owner at Rangers and not need to declare the disqualification i.e. it was more than 5 years ago that he was disqualified.

    Which would mean in theory after five years of disqualification he would not need to declare it as it was more than five years since his disqualification…. but he would still be disqulaified?

    In that sense it would stand to reason it would infer 5 years since his disqulification ended..

  5. tigertim says:

    Rab, it would be more interesting if the SFA had not reached a verdict on proper person by the time all of the truth on whyte is known. There will be a lot more interesting facts after admin/liquidation is announced, probably dating back to day -20 of any takeover by Whyte. I would imagine the SFA/SPL have a good audit trail of all of there investigations, which they will release to the MSM.

  6. JJ says:

    Am I missing the bleeding obvious?

    The SFA rule is that any “fit and proper” test applies to a disqualification within the previous 5 years.

    Newsnight raised the question of when will the SFA say that the start date for the disqualification rule runs? Is it from the date of disqualification or the date when the disqualification ended?

    The only sensible answer must be the latter.

    Otherwise someone with a disqualification for more than 5 years, as Whyte, could pass the test WHILST STILL DISQUALIFIED.

  7. kindred spirit says:

    This Craig Whyte stuff is a sideshow to the tax case. Why’s Murray not under investigation by Daly?


    Maybe preparing the oil by frying the little fish first

  8. Cortes says:

    The clearsighted Rangers fan I spoke to this evening did not think SDM will avoid a storm of flak for much longer, despite best efforts of the MSM in Scotland.

  9. gunnerb says:

    RTC as regards the tenor of the blog..close it immediately upon RFC entering administration/receivership. Always leave them wanting more.

    open next day as RTC 2012.

  10. Barcabhoy says:

    Bartin Main says:
    06/02/2012 at 11:57 pm
    0 0 Rate This
    This Craig Whyte stuff is a sideshow to the tax case. Why’s Murray not under investigation by Daly?


    Who says he’s not. If the Tax case goes badly for Rangers, and I believe it will go very badly, then Mark Daly will be a busy busy boy.

    I believe great credit is due to Mark and his producers at the BBC. This is a sample of why the BBC is as good as it gets in broadcasting worldwide.

    I know we can all have a rant about Chic (I actually quite like him) and Traynor (not so much ), however the BBC are a class act, especially if you have to suffer dollops of American TV as I do.

    Talking of broadcasting…..RTC there’s a movie in this…….i’ll fund it, if you’ll write it…….not kidding either !!

  11. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:

    JJ says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:04 am

    Q.E.D. Bravo!

  12. OnandOnandOnand says:

    So, RTC, how did we do?

    23 or so hours after your latest blog and well over 550 comments?

    I think it was mostly relevant and very few posts that were off topic (please, song lyrics go in the About section). Can we be trusted?

  13. StevieBC says:

    I’ll ask another stupid question…

    Over the years there has been debate about having supporter representation on a Club’s Board – but I don’t know how widely, if at all, that operates in real life ! Clubs are businesses first and foremost in most cases, and can understand a certain resistance to this suggestion.

    But does the SFA have any formal ‘supporter representation’ ?

    As an organisation which has higher objectives than merely commercial gain, I would like to think that the SFA would welcome a direct link to the paying customer and their concerns/suggestions. Or am I just being daft ? 🙂

  14. tilhotdogsbark says:

    Bartin Main says:

    06/02/2012 at 11:57 pm

    This Craig Whyte stuff is a sideshow to the tax case. Why’s Murray not under investigation by Daly?

    Not suggesting that Daly is conforming, but the current aim within the media would appear to be casting the tax case as the supporting act.

  15. Johnboy says:

    The initial agreement between Liberty and Ticketus was signed on March 8, 2011, the same day that Whyte and Betts joined Ellis as Directors of Wavetower.
    Why Wavetower? Why Ellis?
    Had Ellis already done the homework on the season tickets loan but Whyte came on board with a written guarantee that the “fakeover” would go through?
    It’s fascinating stuff.
    My brain’s simply not twisted enough to work these guys out.

  16. It wizny me says:

    RTC , would it no be better to have the thumbs up/down after the comment, that way it would mean comments would be read 1st and not just given the up/ down because of the posters name, track record etc, just a thought. Please keep up the excellent work one & all

  17. Goosy says:

    Yet another failure by RTC

    I quote ……………..as post No 550

    RTC 6th Feb Header

    “However, the comments section of this blog has simply become unmanageable. With over 2,500 replies posted in a matter of five days, I do not have time to read them all.”

    Night night all

  18. Ox3

    Today has been one of those days that chase any doubts about what we are doing. A fantastic effort from so many people- not least you, PaulMcC, Barcabhoy, and Billybhoy. Chapaux all round.

  19. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Billybhoy68/Paul McConville

    Did my eyes deceive me or was the declaration notarised by Ross Harper and Murphy? (the commercial arm of which is now Harper Macleod, Wee Craigie’s lawyers) Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, as corsica may be wont to say, but typed better than me

  20. John says:

    Barcabhoy says:

    06/02/2012 at 10:04 pm

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    06/02/2012 at 9:33 pm
    1 0 Rate This
    easyJambo says:

    06/02/2012 at 9:29 pm

    I can only speak from experience, a deal such as this would involve binding documents before Ticketus would tranfer such a sum to Wavetower’s solicitors


    agreed, but the deal only crystallized when Whyte gained control. The transfer of funds into an Escow would have been written in such a way as to bind the forward release of the funds to Whytes purchase of MIH’s shares.

    The timing of an April transfer of funds to Collyer Bristow was merely to enable MIH to say that had proof that Whyte had funds available to complete the transaction.

    Whyte was not asked by MIH how he made his money, all MIH had to do was ask Collyer Bristow if the funds in their Escrow account complied with anti money laundering regulations


    I want to go back a step to the discussion about the Ticketus deal being disclosed/approved by the directors.

    If earlier suppositions are in place and the Ticketus deal was agreed in principle before the takeover and only went ‘live’ after Murray’s shares had passed to Whyte and he became ‘owner’, my question would be, which directors needed to agree to the Ticketus deal and how many of them would need to approve it?

    With Whyte getting rid of dissenters on the board, rendering impotent the remainder of the old guard and importing his own men it may not, depending on the timing, have been that difficult to present a board-approved document to Ticketus without having to disclose anything to the likes of Johnston, Bain and Murray.

    Would this make sense?

  21. timtim says:

    Has been reported on FF that Whyte has had another meeting with the VB earlier this evening
    (pre newsnight)
    cue pitchforks outside BBC Scotland (again)

  22. OnceABhoy says:

    The ending of the Mark Daly piece has put the sfa under the microscope. Their credibility (quiet at the back) is on the line to a higher degree now.

    (s)DM is as the saying goes “A dish best served cold”. When the merde hits the fans will blame all and sundry and the msm will declare open season. This blog has a long shelf life and if any journos are reading (well done Mark D, could do better Darryl, get the finger oot shug, give it up JT and KJ…well until now you have made these guys look competent imo, not an easy task) pay attention, you could recoup a wee bit credibility if you learn from this blog.

    Stewart Regan, Neil Doncaster….we are watching. If you make a wrong move it will become public knowledge.

  23. merciatic says:

    A “new-co” rangers not in the SPL would be less profitable, less attractive and therefor of less value if bought outright and taken out of administration. There might actually be more value in the assets broken up and sold separately. Rangers could actually disapear as a club.

  24. OnandOnandOnand says:

    John says:

    07/02/2012 at 12:27 am

    John, I think the deal could only work if it was between Ticketus and Wavetower, hence would require the approval on CW, Ellis and Phil. Wavetower would undertake to procure that, when the shares were transferred, they would have Rangers agree to the transaction and, perhaps, it would end up in an MG05s to release the tickets…..ooops

    Have done the legally proper version of this a fair few times myself, it’s really quite common in commercial transactions

  25. OnceABhoy says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:39 am

    Agree……my query would be….why then would Phil jump ship?

  26. renfrewdave says:

    tilhotdogsbark says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:20 am
    This Craig Whyte stuff is a sideshow to the tax case. Why’s Murray not under investigation by Daly?
    is it not a case that there are more threads to pull at with white than murray. maybe once things start to unravel around white then we might see murray being pulled at more by the MSM

  27. brogan rogan trevino and hogan says:

    Good Evening,

    I am sorry but I have not been able to come back to the blog during the course of the day, and so I have to presume that I have missed a great deal.

    However, what must become obvious to any enquiring mind, is how Craig Whyte managed to secure a deal with Ticketus as early as March 2011?

    I am presuming he signed some sort of exclusivity agreement with MIH in relation to the potential purchase of the Rangers shares– that is normal procedure when looking to buy the share capital of an active trading PLC or indeed private company.

    Such an agreement may even specify that the potential buyer has the right to contact and make enquiries of existing supplier etc to the target company. However, I have never heard of a potential buyer being able to enter a fully binding agreement for the assets of the target company prior to that buyer taking control of the company. Further, I do not see how that deal can in any way be completed without the knowledge of the outgoing board.

    In this instance, just stop and consider how on earth some £24Million pounds or so came to be transferred to Collier Bristow by Ticketus.Such a sum of money does not leave one bank account for another unless there has been a whole lot of paperwork previously adjusted, negotiated and signed.

    Given that the Ticketus money was in the Collier Bristow account before the Rangers deal was signed and concluded, who on earth signed the paperwork on behalf of Rangers PLC which lead to a ticket company supposedly purchasing a section of their season tickets for the next 4 years?

    Somebody somewhere needs to explain this in my humble opinion.

  28. OnceABhoy says:

    Having long been a follower and fan of CQN and Paul in particular this link highlights why?


  29. renfrewdave says:

    brogan rogan trevino and hogan says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:46 am
    would Lloyds tsb have given approval to craig whyte and ticketus to discuss and conculde a deal to help push through the sale of the club?

  30. OnandOnandOnand says:

    OnceABhoy says:

    07/02/2012 at 12:41 am

    No idea why Phil would jump. He doesn’t seem to figure much in the CW cabal, only since Wee Craigie became a banker in MHG, so there might not be that strong a connection. Would you want to be mixed up in all this? Cold feet, family stuff, a realisation of what’s to come? After all, he’s a south east Engerland boy, did he really know what he was getting into?

    The Phil Betts angle doesn’t work for me. He is pretty anonymous, a finance broker, reasonably successfull but no big player. Probably just in it to make up the numbers.

    On that point, where is Henry Clarkson? His incisive analysis of the GEF seems more and more to the point. CW is a clinically defined psychopath, dead cert, he just doesn’t understand people’s feelings on this. I had a fascinating conversation with Henry C and another, sorry, forget the name, when a programme was on BBC about psychopaths in business. CW’s attitude to this all can only be explained in those terms. Comment, Henry C?

  31. John says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:

    07/02/2012 at 12:39 am

    I think that’s pretty much where I was trying to get to.

    Just to make it clear, I am not trying to get the old board off the hook on anything but it does seem to me that this is one deal that Craig Whyte would certainly want to keep as far under the radar as possible and involving as few people as possible.

    I also wonder if getting wind of this helped John Greig in his decision to jump ship with his complaint of not being kept in the loop.

  32. tenerifetim says:

    Again for the exiles with no access , courtesy of KDS

  33. OnceABhoy says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:55 am

    Again agree. Now if I was a promsing journo or better yet a govt accredited investigator I might have a wee word with Phil and reach an accomodation.

  34. rab says:


    Whenever the sfa deliver its findings it will be a case of so whit! There is no chance they could have stopped the takeover prior to the £1 changing hands, and they have no chance of removing him now until he decides its time for sunnier climes. They will have to deliver sometime though and it wont be in gefs benifit, and thats when questions can be asked as to what scrutiny was gefs past given when the sfa had ample time to conduct there own due diligence on who was taking over rangers.

  35. Barcabhoy says:

    John says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:27 am


    You would need a quorum to pass that, however you would also need to inform ALL directors in writing prior to the action .

    In Rangers case ,Greig and McLelland only resigned in early October, as did Donald Mcintyre. I believe Martin Bain resigned on June 24th as a Director.

    My information is that Ticketus provided funds in early May. At that point there were 7 directors. The 4 mentioned above and Whyte, King and Betts. Whyte could not have called a meeting with only himself Betts and King.

    However I believe there is evidence, via the cash valance in the unaudited accounts, to suggest the transaction was not with Rangers Football Club plc. Whyte has confirmed “one of his other companies is underwriting the deal”. What does he mean by underwriting. Is it in fact more likely the transaction is direct with another Whyte company. Any significant related party transaction has to be reported to ALL directors in writing.

    The scale of this is staggering, if the Record and my information is correct. Look at it from both possibilities

    💼 Whyte organizes the securitisation of the major revenue stream at Rangers, and doesn’t tell the majority of the other Directors, at the same time giving cause for HMRC to start a VAT investigation. None of these Directors knew what happened to the money or if it even went to Rangers at all


    💼 Whyte used a Rangers asset to secure funds in one of his companies, which he subsequently used to pay off Lloyds. This marginalizes and disadvantages minority shareholders, and in my view also breaches the Companies act of 2006, as he was a related party to the transaction and should have disclosed it in writing in advance to ALL Rangers Directors and to the minority shareholders via the Plus Market (apologies for calling it AIM earlier )

    Whyte clearly, given his track record, his behavior and the BBC disclosures is someone who has not earned the right to be believed in his public pronouncements . He can easily settle all of this by providing copies of the relevant documentation. So could Ticketus, who must be concerned about any role they are playing, probably inadvertently , in marginalizing and disadvantaging minority shareholders.

    however holding your breath is not advised.

  36. termonabbey says:

    RTC, Thanks so much for this. When I think of my late Father and Grandfather and what they endured in Glasgow, you have done them proud. I bet, St Peter’s, Dalbeth is rockin. Please do a book. My son is is doing the RTC as a project in Business Studies in school.Thank -You

  37. Lord Wobbly says:

    Not long in but I have to say this is ridiculous. How is a comedic genius supposed to contribute if you guys are going to keep posting this clever on topic stuff?

    Tried to watch the Newsnight programme via Virgin Media catch up TV. Unable to view due to high demand in my area! 😯

  38. easyJambo says:

    On the SFA “Fit and Proper Persons Test”, it is clear that the SFA’s interpretation of their rule is that 5 years must elapse following a period of disqualification, otherwise they would have responded before now that there was no case to answer.

    I’m sure that Stewart Regan, Campbell Ogilvie and co. are well aware of what is going on at RFC and realise that impending insolvency events will ultimately negate the need to come to a judgement on the FPP test.

    Funny how the new compliance officer can come to a decision on an infraction of the rules within a couple of days. 😦

  39. Barcabhoy says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:39 am
    0 0 Rate This
    John says:

    07/02/2012 at 12:27 am

    John, I think the deal could only work if it was between Ticketus and Wavetower, hence would require the approval on CW, Ellis and Phil. Wavetower would undertake to procure that, when the shares were transferred, they would have Rangers agree to the transaction and, perhaps, it would end up in an MG05s to release the tickets…..ooops

    Have done the legally proper version of this a fair few times myself, it’s really quite common in commercial transactions


    agreed, which takes us back to the minority shareholders rights, and also to Whyte and Betts obligations to report the transaction in advance to ALL of the Rangers plc board

  40. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Barcabhoy says:

    07/02/2012 at 1:03 am

    If the agreement was between Wavetower and Ticketus, why would the notifications you suggest be relevant? I know there are many posts today but scroll up and have a look at what I said about this earlier. What you say is spot on if Rangers did the deal but not sure if that’s the same if it was Wavetower

  41. timtim says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:55 am
    twas I Ox3
    this is the link I posted
    The problem with CW is he doesnt see himself as others do and this dillusion will lead to his downfall .

  42. timtim says:


    sorry wrong link previous

  43. Barcabhoy says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    07/02/2012 at 1:10 am
    0 0 Rate This
    Barcabhoy says:

    07/02/2012 at 1:03 am

    If the agreement was between Wavetower and Ticketus, why would the notifications you suggest be relevant? I know there are many posts today but scroll up and have a look at what I said about this earlier. What you say is spot on if Rangers did the deal but not sure if that’s the same if it was Wavetower


    I think from a disclosure perspective it doesn’t matter who Ticketus did the deal with. Like you I believe it was wave tower. However the transaction relates to Rangers plc assets , and as Whyte and Betts are , or were at the time, directors of both Rangers plc and wave tower , they have an obligation to report that in writing to all directors of both companies.

  44. emile zarbo says:

    brogan rogan trevino and hogan says:
    07/02/2012 at 12:46 am

    You are implying perhaps that someone in Rangers pre-takeover agreed to the Ticketus deal? The money stayed in the club indeed…

  45. OnandOnandOnand says:


    indeed, I remember that well.

    My problem is that I have a psychopath in charge of my club with tuppence in his pocket to feed the birds and no-one to stop him doing what he will do.

    He redefines dissembling and stirs up the masses with invective….

    All in all, a fud

  46. John says:

    brogan rogan trevino and hogan says:

    07/02/2012 at 12:46 am

    I think this was gone over a few days ago but I think in essence what is important here that Craig Whyte could show SDM and Lloyds (according to Alistair Johnston it was only them that were involved in the final discussions on the transfer of shares) that he had a guarantee of funding to meet their requirements. i.e. that he would have £18m for Lloyds and £1.00 for SDM.

    The deal with Ticketus would be with Wavetower (not the existing owners and board of Rangers) and would only become effective when Llyods and SDM had agreed the deal with Craig Whyte.

    Effectively, all Collier Bristow has to do is prove to SDM and Lloyds’ satisfaction that money will be forthcoming,
    Craig hands over his pound to SDM for his shares, then as the proud owner of Rangers gets on the phone to Ticketus to tell them that he and Rangers’ new board now have the authority to do the deal on the ticket sales as provisionally agreed, Ticketus releases the cash and Craig hands over the £18m to Lloyds.

    In essence he did not sell any assets of a company he did not own only reached an agreement that he would do so if he became the owner.

  47. OnandOnandOnand says:

    John says:

    07/02/2012 at 1:22 am

    Agreed, re last sentence.

    Night all

  48. layman00 says:


    “If Whyte used the season book revenue to receive funds in any business that is not Rangers Football Club plc, then he has stolen from the minority shareholders”

    Could this be in any way for changing the company name from Wavetower to Rangers FC group Ltd?

  49. Barcabhoy says:

    John says:
    07/02/2012 at 1:22 am

    In essence he did not sell any assets of a company he did not own only reached an agreement that he would do so if he became the owner.


    last post from me tonight. I agree with that in relation to timing. However who received the money is key. Wavetower or Rangers plc

    and under either scenario, I believe he needed to disclose the transaction PRIOR to crystallizing to all directors of both companies

  50. OnandOnandOnand says:

    In deference to your honouring me with a chapeau and Hugh’s rodent observations


%d bloggers like this: