Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation

Keeping up fan morale has never been more important at Ibrox. If Rangers simply run out of cash to keep the lights on, the administrators will have no choice but to liquidate the club. While the administration process means that Rangers have great leeway with regards which bills they pay, it is vital for the club that cash continues to come in. Therefore, we need to view all statements emanating from Edmiston Drive as being designed to achieve that goal.

We have heard some strange-sounding statements from the administrators, but it is the story circulating that the tax case has not gone well for HMRC that I found interesting. Scotland on Sunday reported this week that this blog “claimed the ‘smoking gun’ for HMRC was a number of letters indemnifying players from any future tax liabilities on money placed in their EBTs”. I have said no such thing. I did say: “I can only hope for Rangers’ sake that they were not so stupid as to provide written guarantees for players saying that they did not need to repay these loans”.

It was in fact Darrell King on Clyde Superscore Board who told us that Rangers players had two contracts and were given side letters telling them that loans did not need to be repaid. Darrell went further on 10 November, 2011 stating: “I saw the letters the players have got to state that they are not liable for any payments which were part of their contract“.  (More recently, Darrell denied actually seeing the letters).

Regardless, a “key witness” at the tribunal reports that no such side letters existed. That would be fantastic news for Rangers if it was true.

I can only assume that the story from this “key witness” is being pushed to keep fan morale up during these difficult days. It may also be a last-ditch effort to try to get anyone in possession of the facts to make a mistake and disclose evidence presented to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).

Let us look objectively at this “source”.  The Scotland on Sunday report stated: “The source, who is not connected to Rangers but had clients who benefited from EBTs“. This is a key witness?  Someone who did not participate in the EBT personally? Someone who is not connected to Rangers? Given the long list of players and executives who participated in the EBT scheme, this is the best witness available to refute Darrell King’s claims?

If this person was indeed a witness at the tribunal, he will have been called as a witness by Rangers. He will have been initially examined by Rangers’ counsel, cross-examined by HMRC’s lawyer, and then possibly re-examined by Rangers’ counsel again. Then he will have been made to leave the hearing. He would not know anything about what evidence was presented other than his own.

Of course, nothing in life is absolute. This blog never said that defeat for Rangers in the tax case is 100% guaranteed, but I believe that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the club. We are close to the end of this process and it is probably best that those with an interest in learning the facts remain patient and simply wait for the FTT result.  The significance of this case is no longer in dispute, and there is little need to bang the drum for more publicity for Rangers’ difficulties. After all this time, we can wait a little while longer for the final outcome.

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.

730 Responses to Rangers’ PR Still Peddling Disinformation

  1. Tommy says:

    for those unable to tune in to the STV show

    (courtesy of AMAC on Celtic minded)

  2. Hugh McEwan says:

    Zidane’s hero played for the hoops says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:16 am


    Rangers don’t have any debt to Ticketus, they have pre-sold tickets.

    The value of those tickets, bought and paid for, is nearer £44m than £24m.

  3. shug says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:10 am

    David Conn in the Grauniad stated today that Portsmouth were given 5 years to pay back £3.5 million (20p/£ of £17million tax bill).

  4. Tommy says:

    and the BBC SCotland Newsnight programme

    (again, courtesy of AMAC)

  5. corsica says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:07 am



    Rate This

    My life span is measured in ever shorter units.

    Could Corsica and Brogan etc just keep it on a precis basis. Brogan etc has a fine turn of phrase and oritory is his leg end ary but it mostly summarises what we know. We know what we know. You are at your best when we learn something new, as your summation of rules which is instructive. Additions of aged Roxy Music videos just isn’t needed, it screws up my phone something awful.

    Corsica, I appreciate why you regurgitated that statement but “he’s a fud” would have done nicely
    Is that why I only got a hat? Point taken ‘ though.

  6. SickoftheB.S. says:

    Sorry don’t think any the panelists on the STV news we’re relevant to half the questions asked of them i.e the financial side what background does Jim Traynor have and they didn’t say what the professor specialised in so why interview them on things they clearly knew nothing about.
    Speaking from a last year accounts students view, i could of explained half the questions better thanks very much
    P.S. Yous shouldn’t believe everything you hear and read from Journalists

  7. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Hugh McEwan says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:20 am

    Zidane’s hero played for the hoops says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:16 am


    Rangers don’t have any debt to Ticketus, they have pre-sold tickets.

    The value of those tickets, bought and paid for, is nearer £44m than £24m.

    And you still think it was a 3 year deal?

  8. Hugh McEwan says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:17 am

    Hugh McEwan says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:10 am

    You are confusing me with someone else, don’t think I said that


    I didn’t think you said that, my apologies if it came across that way, You were expressing confusion with regard what someone was saying. I felt exactly the same way and was basically just empathising with you in expressing my own incredulity.

    I see how what I posted was confusing and apologise to you individually and to the group collectively.

    Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

    {Note to self, must be clearer.}

  9. corsica says:

    mooby says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:12 am

    I appreciate the sentiment (personally I think Fergus deserves a statue at CP) but it is off-topic and we should do well to remember this is not a CFC site. Comments like that only strenghten the MSM’s claim that this is yet another Celtic-minded bigot-fest.

    ‘Night all.

  10. Hugh McEwan says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:24 am

    Hugh McEwan says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:20 am

    Zidane’s hero played for the hoops says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:16 am


    Rangers don’t have any debt to Ticketus, they have pre-sold tickets.

    The value of those tickets, bought and paid for, is nearer £44m than £24m.

    And you still think it was a 3 year deal?


    Is that a statement or a question?

  11. James says:

    With CW finally owning, (pun intended) up to how he raised the funds to take them over. In the event of court proceedings, and say he got convicted, could he lose the ownership, due to how it was funded? He has said, come through this and he will put in his own money, (cough), would his assets be frozen too?
    And Mooby I agree about Fergus unravelling the Championship flag.

  12. Slybhoy says:

    A bit off topic but an Irish journo saying that we need each other…

  13. OnandOnandOnand says:

    corsica says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:22 am

    Sorry, I’m just extra grumpy tonight.

    When the Truth and Reconcilliation party takes place, I will apologise personally. To you and Brogan etc, he owes me a pint or two anyway. he was firmly in the “No Ticketus” camp

  14. Hugh McEwan says:

    James says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:27 am
    With CW finally owning, (pun intended) up to how he raised the funds to take them over. In the event of court proceedings, and say he got convicted, could he lose the ownership, due to how it was funded? He has said, come through this and he will put in his own money, (cough), would his assets be frozen too?
    And Mooby I agree about Fergus unravelling the Championship flag.


    He paid £1 for 85% of Rangers.

    Is there some doubt over where he got that £1 from.

  15. VITAL Signs says:

    After two months of plodding about, attempting to ascertain whether MBB is a “fit and proper person” to own a football club and getting messed about by those pesky lawyers, the good ol’ SFA is now assembling an independant inquiry led by a senior judge.

    Let me save you some time gentlemen.

    Q. Is Craig Whyte/White, international bullion trader, corporate recovery saviour and billionaire businessman a “fit and proper person” to own a football club?

    A. Naw, he’s no’.

    Job done, no need to thank me, just doing my public duty.

    A fairly cursory trawl through CW’s track record would have brought you to this conclusion, with or without lawyers!

    There are many issues that Gersgate is throwing up, one of them being football governance. The sooner that the SFA are brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century the better.

    Mind you, it must have been a very tricky situation for our esteemed Blazerati. I can imagine the quandary it would have presented to them…

    Blazer 1 “eh, I’ve got a “fit and proper” check for you.”

    Blazer 2 ” fine, nae bother, who is it.”

    Blazer 1 “Rangers.”

    Blazer 2 “Berwick Rangers, right, am on it faster than you can say free lunch!”

    Blazer 1 “naw, naw, it’s Glasgow Rangers”

    Blazer 2 “GLASGOW RANGERS!! You mean the Gers, the Teddy Bears, OUR Rangers!! Oh, sorry, I think I’ll have to pass, I can feel my lumbago playing up something rotten….”

  16. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Hugh McEwan says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:27 am

    The ? at the end of the sentence suggests a question but free grammar is good too.

    As I said, extra grumpy

  17. MJR88 says:

    Exiled in Deepest Kent says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:10 am
     0 0 Rate This
    Did I hear Dingwall correctly tonight?

    “We had a manageable £80million overdraft” & “MIH should have been responsible for BTC”

    FFS A Big Boy Did It & Ran Away!!
    Dingwall is (was) one of the self-important men who up until only a week or so ago, was spreading the message to the masses (pardon the pun) that everything was fine, to remain calm and have full trust in Craigy Boy as he is the one that liaises directly with the MBB and fully understands the GEFs strategy that has been clearly explained to him. But he can’t tell you the full story yet due to confidentiality issues that could compromise Craig’s plan) Exactly the type of person you dont want involved in a type of any future supporters trust.

    PS-I think he meant £18m, but I can see how his mumblings could easily have been misheard as £80m.
    18 or 80, it doesn’t really matter if you don’t have a penny anyway.

  18. Andy says:

    mooby says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:12 am a bit off topic but its shows the MSM in action


    ive just been reading traynors take on fergus from 1999

    Yet, Celtic are still waiting for the player who could strike a blow for them and strengthen their hope of retaining their title. That, Mr McCann is what is most important to your customers, yet you and your people have failed miserably to provide.

    Celtic are still without a top-quality striker because they will not put themselves into the big-pay league. It is that simple and it is also where McCann lets the fans down.

    Listen to this Fergus and try to take it in. You insult your club’s fans when they are told they don’t understand the economics of the business or the workings of the transfer market. And stop telling them players are too greedy and make enormous demands.

    These are not newly-uncovered secrets, Fergus. The supporters could have told you how much would have to be spent to keep Celtic on top. The fact is fans don’t give a damn about how much money players want to grab for themselves and unlike McCann they don’t spend too much time fretting about the profit margin.

    No one is greatly impressed either that McCann appears to have embarked on some kind of holy crusade to bring football’s expenditure under control, and his season- ticket holders would rather have the title with some debt run up on the transfer market than no title and no borrowings.

    These fans are willing to gamble, and remember they, too, are shareholders.

    They still find it difficult to believe Celtic didn’t sign reinforcements during the close season and they are appalled that a top-class striker has not yet been secured. If anything the signing of Lubomir Moravcik at a cut price has merely caused them further embarrassment.

    the last sentence made me smile 🙂

  19. paulmac says:

    Auldheid says:
    21/02/2012 at 11:38 pm

    ….So I have still not ruled out a deal until the guys with the figures tell me a repayment plan cannot be done within a £3M to £6M wage ceiling.

    Is that a player wage ceiling…or the entire club wage bill for playing and non playing?

    As has been mentioned previously..a payback term if allowed should be no longer than 5 years..

    With the medium an big tax case combined…you are looking at an aprox £12m a year plus interest repayment plan at 4% brings it to approx £12.5m a year.

    With a short fall in season ticket revenue and an approx £9m repayment plan for ST..then you are looking at an approx yearly cost for at least 3 years of £22m…add to this the need to reduce eexisting running costs that allegedly need to be reduced by £7-10m..

    I really can’t see anyone with serious money willing to shell out £22m + working capital of around £10-15m + pay CW for his shares…current value approx £10m…thats £40-£50m…just to stand still..

    Can’t see it myself…when you could wait for the house of cards to fold..start afresh with your cash and be in a healthier postion…in div 3 of course!

  20. john clarke says:

    I’m with Mooby on the need to give fergus the honour due to him. we had our own crap like kelly to get us into a mess, and the fergus man saved us.

  21. john.mcgovern@blueyonder.co.uk says:

    Thanks. You are doing a great job. If finance becomes an issue, please contact me.

  22. paulmac says:

    Andy says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:35 am

    Indeed Andy…that last sentence about sums that clown Jabba up..

    Lubo…one of the most gifted players…with both feet and technical ability to ever play football in Scotland…

    As MON said…where has he been all my life..

  23. OnandOnandOnand says:

    paulmac says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:37 am

    am with you on the last paragraph

  24. Hugh McEwan says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:32 am

    Hugh McEwan says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:27 am

    The ? at the end of the sentence suggests a question but free grammar is good too.

    As I said, extra grumpy.


    The conjunction at the start of the sentence and the sentence itself, sans the mark of inquisition suggest otherwise.

    “And you still think it was a 3 year deal”

    Is a badly worded statement, not a question. Just adding the punctuation curly wurly doesn’t really work. It does in spoken English but not in it’s written form. Inflections and so forth.

    I can accept your grumpiness, given the circumstances, however the attacks on other posters are a bit off. I can assure you Rangers’ current and ongoing predicament is no fault of mine. I am wiling to go out on a figurative limb to suggest they are no fault of the others you have been grumpy with.

    Mayhap you should direct your ire at those who have effectively killed the football team you support. To each their own though.

  25. scapa says:

    mooby says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:12 am a bit off topic but its shows the MSM in action

    Obviously Fergus scrimped on the succulent lamb………………..

  26. Andy says:

    scapa says:

    boiled eggs but you had to pay for your own

  27. DAVAD00 says:

    Hugh McEwan,

    if my memory serves me correct. The six year Tax deal was mentioned in a post from Brogan Rogan, Trevino, Hogan about two hours ago. It related to a case that he had been personally involved in recently.

  28. Hugh McEwan says:

    DAVAD00 says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:56 am


    Thanks for that.

    Like I said, I would be really interested in more details if the people concerned were willing and able to provide them.

  29. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Hugh McEwan says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:47 am

    It was a colloquial statement, well understood by others.

    My “attacks on other posters” are observations, not attacks.. I am entitled to opine, just as you are, whether that be in respect of the subject of the posting or the content of the comment.

    I have directed more than my fair share of ire to those who have killed my team, knights of the realm and others, I must express surprise that you have not noted that.

  30. DAVAD00 says:

    Hugh McEwan.

    Brogan Rogan….. 9.04pm 21/02/2012

  31. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Just for Hugh, a bit of my ire

    OnandOnandOnand says:

    21/02/2012 at 5:53 pm



    Rate This

    History is written by the victorious ( can’t remember who said that)

    This is Whyte’s attempt to add a favourable footnote, he did it all for the club.

    Aye right, ya wee fud

  32. Hugh McEwan says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    22/02/2012 at 1:03 am

    I have directed more than my fair share of ire to those who have killed my team, knights of the realm and others, I must express surprise that you have not noted that.


    Firstly, one would direct ire “at” rather than “to”, but that’s not really important right now.

    More importantly whether I have “noted” it (for which I assume you mean “noticed”) is really neither here nor there.

    How you deal with other people who have caused you annoyance and are the source of your “grumpiness” is really your own business. It is not acceptable that you take it out on innocent third parties.

    Unless of course you are a 13 year old girl.

    If you are, and I readily accept the possibility, then you have my sympathies. Rest assured “this too shall pass”.

  33. longtimelurker says:

    MJR88 says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:35 am
    0 0 Rate This
    Exiled in Deepest Kent says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:10 am
    0 0 Rate This

    They did have an £80m over-draught BTW.

    And, Hugh telt ye about time to pay from HMRC.

    BRTH said earlier tonight in one of his more ‘fanciful’ posts re Roxy Music that he had just agreed with HMRC on behalf of a client of his a six year pay back deal for a considerable sum.

  34. MJR88 says:

    Slimshady says:
    22/02/2012 at 12:42 am
     3 0 Rate This
    And so the day ends….and here’s what we learned :-
    CW has betrayed the sacred trust placed in his hands by selling the
    I wonder if he’s sold (or mortgaged) the loving cup yet?
    Makes you wonder what they filled it with only a few weeks as its been downhill since. (depending on your viewpoint)

  35. Hugh McEwan says:

    longtimelurker says:
    22/02/2012 at 1:21 am

    As stated earlier, I would be most grateful if someone could provide further details of this 6 year “time to pay” deal.

    Given the concept of equity of treatment (which I just made up) it may be useful for other taxpayers.

  36. mex says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    22/02/2012 at 1:20 am

    It’s getting to the tickly bit now…

  37. Slimshady says:

    BRTH or whoever

    Can you let me have the name & phone number of the nice chap at HMRC who allowed your client 6 years to pay? It wasn’t Mr Hartnett was it?

    In 27 years I’ve never heard of that length of time – I once prised 40 monthly instalments for a particularly tragic case and positively skipped down the stairs of the HMRC office in delight but I find that amount of time astonishing.

    54 to 0 (in less than 6 years too!)

  38. longtimelurker says:

    BTW, Hugh I paid my tax today by credit card ( I had no option) on the phone to HMRC payments dept and the distinct impression I got from the lady on the phone was that they would have taken milk bottle tops or anything else.

    Now I’m about three weeks late and usually they send out a very firm letter by about the 20th of the month (yes I’ve been here before) but not this time.

    The letter simply said how much was owed up until last Friday and offered multiple ways of paying.

    Must be the austerity thing kicking in.

  39. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Hugh McEwan says:

    22/02/2012 at 1:20 am

    The grammar lesson is noted but not accepted.

    I assume you are an 11 year old girl consumed by envy of the foresaid 13 year old object of your desire

  40. Hugh McEwan says:

    Slimshady says:
    22/02/2012 at 1:28 am

    I am given to understand Mr Hartnett has left the building.

    If not then he is collecting his belongings, saying farewell to his chums and has ordered a taxi.

  41. longtimelurker says:

    Hugh & Slim,

    there’s definitely a change at HMRC now regarding late payment if my post above is anything to go by.

    They do seem to be a bit more ‘understanding’ now.

    I’ve certainly never had a letter like the one I received last Friday re being behind with the latest payment before.

    Usually the letter are much more ‘threatening’ in tone.

    And, BTW the interest that HMRC charge is buttons compared to the bank or my bank anyway and even the CC charge is very reasonable, 1.2% or thereabouts.

  42. k3lly says:


    Time to pay guidelines – last para is funny in the context of this blog’s target.

    Not clear if this is only individuals or not. Seems like it is but what do I know?

  43. PaperP says:

    Obvious Brogan can’t reveal any more for the sake of confidentiality and covering his own ass. You can choose to believe him or not, but stop demanding more information as if you have a right to information regarding his clients.
    I don’t think it’s completely unbelievable that in these tough times, HMRC are bringing in previously unprecedented timescales in an attempt to claw back what is owed, especially in cases where liquidation would only cover a small fraction of the bill.

  44. Hugh McEwan says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    22/02/2012 at 1:32 am


    Not really.

    You are a supporter of a disgraceful anachronism, who is kicking out at people because he is “a bit grumpy”. They are accepting your awful behaviour because they are intrinsically decent people.

    I’m just this bloke who supports a football team.

    Why would I feel even the remotest bit envious.

    Give it a few weeks and I fully expect my team to be favourites for the domestic treble. In the same period I expect yours to constitute one of the biggest scandals ever in World football.

    Sorry, what was the question again?

  45. mex says:

    Could UEFA be standing over the corpse?

    Things are getting rather messy,no?

  46. Auldheid says:

    paulmac says:

    22/02/2012 at 12:37 am

    Yup 5 years would be the limit of what would be accepted as reasonable and such an arrangement, if possible, would be less attractive to an investor than a Newco with no tax baggage.

    But it is HMRC who will decide what is in their best interests and Newco certainly comes at a cost to them and HMRC not Rangers will be in a position to dictate the path to follow.

    The blog, for all its expertise has not (as far as I have discerned) had anyone with experience of central government policy formulating/advising to present the HMRC/Treasury case from the inside. Not only does Government want to collect tax, it wants to call football to order and payment agreements give it the legitimate means.

    I have seen some of these top Civil Service guys in action and if Ministers want a plan that they can sell to all parties, and getting tax owed paid is not exactly a hard sell, then they will come up with something.

    The elements will be an agreement based on

    As strict a player wage ceilng as will keep the support coming in at a reasonable level during payback time

    As short a time scale to repay as the business case will allow.

    Installing a fit and proper governing Board for the repayment duration.

    That Board formulating a handover strategy for when the tax is paid that will encourage the support they will have a future role to play and so keep turning up in reasonable numbers *.

    In return for handing over control and avoiding liquidation CW avoids arrest and other nasty consequences 🙂 for the game has clearly changed for him.

    * and if they do not after a couple of seasons, HMRC pull the plug on the agreement, stick in the liquidiser plug instead and make it clear they will do so.

  47. Lucculent Sam says:

    Auldheid says: 21/02/2012 at 11:38 pm
    Listening to Dingwall and The MP O Donohoe (?) on Scotland Tonight I can see pressure and a case for an HMRC deal to be done.

    What political pressure could a numpty Scottish Labour MP (are there any other kind?) be able to bring to bear? He doesn’t even have the backing of his party. Which isn’t in government: it’s HM Opposition. And anyway HMRC is fairly immune to interventions from obscure backbench MPs.

    If Donohoe doesn’t know this, he is a fool. If he does know this, he’s just playing to the gallery to get some free attention for himself from the MSM. And pandering to an element among his constituents who include the fine citizens of Cumnock and Kilwinning if I’m not mistaken.

    Donohoe pretty much admitted all he could do was write to the chairman of a select committee and ask them to conduct an investigation. Which is about as likely to take place as his team winning the SPL this season.

    Of course it’s to be expected the MP running the parliamentary Rangers Supporters Club – it is probably smaller than the Scottish Tory MP’s Club – will bang the drum for Rangers FC (IN ADMINISTRATION). This is not significant, no matter how much airtime he gets.

    That said, there is a deal to be done. Rangers FC (IN ADMINISTRATION) can simply pay their taxes and also pay their other creditors in full, just like any decent business does.

  48. the hitch22 (@john_mityboosh) says:

    slightly off topic, concerns the Arsenal shares, from a Goooner forum…

    The main reason Arsenal are constantly mentioned in relation to Rangers going into administration is because Craig Whyte purchased a very small number of shares in Arsenal some time ago and they were financed by Rangers accounts! Now they are in administration they will look at anyway possible to generate income and at 16k a share there was a substantial amount of money to be made! Now contrary to popular belief these shares were sold some time ago but the cretins in the media were unaware of this and surely assumed that Arsenal and Rangers were somehow linked and therefore would follow suit by going into administration! Arsenal have a massive property portfolio which would safeguard them from administration for a good number of years! The loss of CL football would also not have an effect on such state but would surely cut down on the already limited squad investment from the board!

  49. PaperP says:

    Jesus Hugh give it a rest man. No need to pounce on him for asking people to keep their posts a bit shorter. I think we can all agree the comments threads on here are becoming a little convoluted, and huge long comments re-iterating what we already know can become time-consuming.
    You’re completely over-reacting. I’d bet that if it was our club in this position you would be much grumpier and a lot less calm than OnandOnadnOnand

%d bloggers like this: