We don’t do walking away either


The tedium of being an executive secretary at Ibrox in recent years:

The more you refuse to hear my voice. The louder I will sing.

On to more pressing matters: yesterday’s excitement- the deal with Ticketus and The Blue Knights. As the emotional pendulum takes its swing to the other extreme, we will try to place this event its proper context.

For those who wish Rangers to complete a CVA and maintain the continuity of 140 years of history, it is certainly good news. It was one of four major walls that needed to be scaled. However, the other three are much higher.

– Craig Whyte’s Debt & Floating Charge
Even on this board, debate has raged over whether the Ticketus deal would extinguish Craig Whyte’s floating charge over Rangers’ assets. At best it means a knock-down drag out court fight. If Whyte wins, then his only practical way to extract repayment is to force the liquidation of Rangers FC. If he loses this claim, it would be another wall scaled. We would need to see the actual Ticketus contract to place odds on an outcome and neither side have made a convincing argument in public so far.

– Craig Whyte’s Shareholding
Whyte holds all of the good cards as long as he owns 85% of the club’s shares. There are those who say that this transaction can be nullified due to ‘financial assistance’ rules against borrowing against a firm’s assets to buy its shares. They might be confusing debt with equity! While Mr. Whyte now freely admits that he is not a billionaire, I am quite sure that he managed the princely sum of £1 to buy his Rangers shares from his own pocket. Even the SPA (still available on this site) does not offer negation of the contract as a remedy for any failure to fulfill promises. (There is a chance of Whyte’s debt and floating charge being cancelled as a result of certain terms, but these are so loosely worded that it is hard to imagine that they can be enforced). Short of an as-yet-unpublished aspect of the agreement surprising us, it would appear to me that Whyte’s grasp on 85% of Rangers shares should be quite secure. This means that he will demand a price for giving up control.
I am quite sure that Whyte’s treatment from the directors of the old board and the assorted supporter banners blaming him for all of Rangers’ ills will have done little to warm his heart about the need for ‘the big hoose to stay open’.

– HMRC & The Big Tax Case
With about £15m owed in unpaid PAYE, NIC and VAT from just the last year, Rangers are in quite enough bother with HMRC. Then there is the Big Tax Case. Allowing for trimming at the edges, my estimate is that Rangers will owe about £20m in unpaid taxes and about £20m in accumulated interest. With a total of about £55m plus a penalty tribunal still ahead, the only way anyone in their right mind would buy The Rangers FC plc as a continuing entity would be if HMRC were to do a deal that paid them pennies on the pound and forgot all about the penalty (which could add £15-20m more to the bill). Many point to the logic of “something is better than nothing”. This might be true, but this situation is more complex. If Channel 4’s reports are correct and Rangers directors were engaging in activities such as document shredding, it will mean that ill-will to the club will stretch back further than just the arrival of Craig Whyte. If Rangers have been involved in a decade of persistent lying to the government, it could make a deal difficult. A pennies on the pound deal for such a company would signal that paying taxes in-full and on-time is for mugs; the smart money takes advantage of every dubious scheme going and pays a tiny amount even if caught. There is an issue of ‘moral hazard’ in letting Rangers get off lightly.

To assess the odds of Rangers avoiding liquidation you would take the probability of Rangers scaling each of these walls and multiply them together. As any smart 14-year old can tell you, when you multiply numbers smaller than one together you get a smaller number. The arithmetic of this compound probability problem does not favour Rangers’ survival. With one wall scaled already, their chances of survival are not zero either. However, playing the odds, avoiding liquidation does seem improbable.

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 are for one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

1,500 Responses to We don’t do walking away either

  1. Auldheid says:

    dukinfisgusted says:

    05/04/2012 at 11:23 pm

    I was at a funeral today,very sad, now I’m pissin my pants.
    ===================================

    I was at a mates funeral today. He died after being hit on the head with a tennis ball.

    It was a lovely service.

  2. Mikey says:

    I had a look through the list of Creditors with a bit of disbelief, even the wife couldn’t believe some of them.

    I just get the feeling they are exaggerating the amounts owed. In fact did they not pay off some of the monies owed from the fighting fund which are still listed?

    Why would they do that?

    1. To scare off some or all of the groups looking at a rescue package?
    2. To increase/decrease percentages for a CVA. I noticed the HMRC, not counting the tax cases, are owed 25.9% however they haven’t added any monies due to employees so maybe could fall below 25%. However I guess that would only matter if you wanted a CVA before the tax case results.

    Anyway I’ve never been good with money, just felt something wasn’t quite right.

  3. Private Land says:

    Johnboy says:

    06/04/2012 at 12:50 am
    The valuations listed for Murray Park and Ibrox are based on the old method.
    Duff & Duffer have since asked another firm (Reith & Lambert) to supply new valuations.
    They have declined to reveal these new valuations due to “commercial confidentiality”, as they impact directly on bids for the club.
    ____________________________________________________________

    Is it not axiomatic that any bidder will need to know what this “secret” valuation is before bidding?

    Will potential bidders have the right to commission their own survey (if so, why keep the secret)?

    Are they really saying here that the current bidders don’t know what the value of the fixed assets are?

    All the bidders (I assume) want to run a football club, so if the “football use” valuation is what they are after, why the secrecy on the open-market valuation?

    Also, I thought the bidding phase was over?

    On your other points, what kind of diddies do D&P think are out there? If you tell people half a story, they will immediately assume that the other half is the important bit. Given Ticketus’s recent experience, that’s the half I would want to hear.

  4. CE says:

    Nipples, your continued apologia for Our Dear Leader are growing increasingly tired and misguided.

    Rants about ‘call me dave’ Cameron serve no cause other than to show your detachment from the facts. RTC(as far as we know so far) has left the UK government with no awkward questions to answer.

    As much as you may not like to admit it, Dear Leader is ‘fair game’, possible unconstitutional questioning of HMRC and the guff he spouted on day 2 of RFC(IA) alone, leave him with some questions to answer.

    Back to the matter at hand, and a wee question, as Duff and Duffer have just admitted to presiding over a £2.5 million loss in 6 weeks, are they not in danger of being withdrawn as administrators? At best their professional reputation must be shot? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I always presumed one of the main tasks of administration was balancing the books?

  5. Hugh McEwan says:

    paperbhoy says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:11 am

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

    Can you show me an example where HMRC had more than the required 25% to block a CVA.

    Particularly when the taxpayer had been to a tribunal, having failed to reach a negotiated settlement.

    HMRC desperately wanted to block the Portsmouth CVA. To such an extent that when the administrator rejected part of their claim they too him to Court to try to overturn the decision.

  6. Auldheid says:

    paperbhoy says:

    06/04/2012 at 1:11 am

    If HMRC were to do a deal with Rangers they in effect set the price for any deal in England. Kill Rangers and they name their price.

  7. yojimbo56 says:

    The Iceman says:
    06/04/2012 at 12:49 am
     0 0 Rate This
    I have read and considered your response.

    I am exercising schadenfraude and responding in a less than fair manner. and for that I hereby state you are right yojimbo – and I hereby apologise.

    #####

    Cheers Iceman,

    You demonstrate a decency that underpins this Blog and it’s contributors. This is why I want to be part of the debate. Incidentally, Not for one second would I want to deny posters their absolute right to their schadenfreude moment (tenner and fivers and all that).

    Initially I came to RTC because it was a fantastic source of undiluted information. a kind of idiots guide to EBT’s etc. Then I thought I could make some contributions and be like a kind of Jiminy Cricket character, letting MY conscience be some of the more vigorous posters guide….Instead I’ve ended up like a school janny, shouting at kids for the slightest playground misdemeanour.

    Passion and ranting and even lack of fairness should be part of the wider flow of acute analysis and yearning for justice and integrity. Iceman, you owe me no apology whatsoever! This is one hell of an enthralling journey we are all undertaking. For me it might be sore but it’s also incredibly democratic and liberating!

  8. scapa says:

    Hugh McEwan says:

    06/04/2012 at 1:18 am

    They also pursued the Leeds CVA, up to the point they enetered CVL

  9. Macfurgly says:

    paperbhoy says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:11 am

    HMRC fought all the way to block the CVA at Dundee FC at a time when the RFC situation was building visibly in the background. In the end they had to settle for, i am rteliably informed, 6p in the £. The resentment among other creditors in the city still lingers, incidentally.

    Auldheid says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:14 am
    Belter!

  10. JFL says:

    Auldheid says:

    06/04/2012 at 1:18 am

    paperbhoy says:

    06/04/2012 at 1:11 am

    If HMRC were to do a deal with Rangers they in effect set the price for any deal in England. Kill Rangers and they name their price.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    Auldheid, I totally agree. I have been banging on about this to anyone who will listen for ages.

    It is already sounding like plugs are being pulled on offers leaving only TBK and their reported £10 million offer. Which is about 7p in the £1. For HMRC that “deal” would amount to less than £7million. Which is less than the PAYE and VAT debt run up this season alone.

    So, do HMRC take that mouth watering deal? Or do they reject it and take Ranger’s head on a stick? I know which I’d chose if I was in their shoes.

    Hector: Hello Mr Premiership chairman. About those EBTs. How much are you offering? And before you answer, do you like my little trophy here…

    Chairman: Emm…I’ll get my cheque book…

  11. paperbhoy says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:18 am

    Can you show me an example where HMRC had more than the required 25% to block a CVA.

    Particularly when the taxpayer had been to a tribunal, having failed to reach a negotiated settlement.

    HMRC desperately wanted to block the Portsmouth CVA. To such an extent that when the administrator rejected part of their claim they too him to Court to try to overturn the decision.
    _________________

    I’m just a layman and looking for reassuring answers from those who know better, so I very much appreciate that a lot of my thinking is most likely bordering on the wrong side of clueless, but at least I’m confident that I’m not the only one baffled by the esoterics of all this (although I speak for no one else of course!).

    So I thank yourself, Auldheid and all for shedding light and being patient with us less well versed types:-)

    I agree about HMRC’s 25% status, but from my reading of the Portsmouth thing, although they were ordered to pay 20%, they seem to have pretty much ignored that order and carried on regardless. So are HMRC seen once more to be unable to enforce an order? If so, I doubt many sinners are quaking in their boots. I see teams like Pompey and, talking of quakers, Darlo going into admin on multiple occasions and getting away with repeat offending and I wonder just what it is that’s going to stop a similar scenario at RFC(IA)?

    I appreciate that we’re talking about different legal jurisdictions, and perhaps a different scenario given HMRC may be in a more powerful position in this case, but I don’t think I’ll ever get rid of that churning in my stomach until (and unless) the deed is done.

  12. john clarke says:

    Private Land says
    06/04/2012 @1.06 a.m.
    Paperbhoy says @ 1.11 a.m.
    —————————————–
    These two posts bring me back to the question of whether any of the Celtic family is able to, or is presently taking steps to, orchestrate mass public reaction to any lenient treatment of Rangers(about to go bust), or any bending of the rules by either the football authorities or state authorities to accommodate them?
    As said before, tyrants have already been brought down by ‘social media’. Maybe our own authorities need to be shocked into realising that the ‘ascendancy’ is not perhaps in the ascendent any more!
    What a great day, spoiled a bit by the fact that, after complaining plenty about the time I spent on this blog, it was my wife who heard the news while I was out ,and gleefully greeted me with it when I came in! Sod’s law.

  13. Private Land says:

    paperbhoy says:

    06/04/2012 at 1:11 am

    Barcabhoy says:
    05/04/2012 at 10:58 pm

    HMRC have no benefit in voting for a CVA and considerable incentive to vote against as a warning to what will happen to others.
    ——————-

    This is all very well and oft repeated, but many are the cases in football where HMRC are paid pennies, and by the look of the Darlington case, sometimes less than a penny in the £.

    Why am I not comforted by this notion that HMRC will dish out a morality warning? The evidence suggests that for all their hard talking, in the end up they’re pretty much toothless. And unscrupulous businesspeople aren’t noted for sheding tears in the face of the carnage they’ve wreaked when they get away with it.

    ________________________________________________________________________

    Dunno if comfort is the word I’d be looking for, but in RFC’s case HMRC will be in control due to a > 25% stake in the creditor cesspool.

    Also, MRC policy is not to agree CVAs if the liability has arisen out of people evading tax – and HMRC regard EBTs as evasion.
    Also because RFC have not been playing ball since at least the time of CW when he refused to pay the agreed wee tax bill and then took PAYE from employees and failed to hand it over.

    Aggressive action begets aggressive reaction. There will be no CVA – and Craig Whyte will be delighted. Join the dots.

    How we can take comfort out of a company stiffing us for about five hospitals-worth of tax though seems a bit morally “off-compass”😦

  14. Doon the slope says:

    Yohjimbo and Iceman

    Fair play to both of you, decent men.

    Yohjimbo, I dont understand how you could support them. You are rightly horrified at Rangers being found to have cheated/mismanaged, whatever.

    But before any of this surfaced, Rangers had been guilty of things which were far more repugnant and morally objectionable, and over a period of many years. What is it that kept you there?

  15. yojimbo56 says:

    Private Land says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:06 am
     4 0 Rate This
    The Iceman says:

    06/04/2012 at 12:49 am
    ______________________________________________________________________

    I think I may have posted this before in another thread. Recently, I had a chat with a former (non Celtic-supporting) colleague, who has reported on Scottish football in print and on air since the early 1960s. We talked about the RFC issues over a coffee or three and I mentioned that there seemed to be an absence of the passion shown by Celtic fans in 1992-94.

    ######

    I completely agree with you on this. However any group, cohesive or disparate, needs a focus/charismatic leader to ‘rally the troops’. Would you agree that Brian Dempsey served this purpose in the 92-94 campaign and built a bridgehead for the Wee Bunnet to take advantage of?

    Rangers fans spokesmen DO seem more prone to pedalling an establishment line. Leave it to us chaps it’ll be alright! No it won’t, but it’s difficult to see how the alternative voices can make themselves heard.

  16. resinlabdog says:

    yojimbo56 says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:23 am

    The Iceman says:
    06/04/2012 at 12:49 am

    From soot, under pressure, over time, comes diamond.

  17. Morpheus says:

    paperbhoy says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:38 am

    Paperbhoy, you have to remember that in England, HMRC have to contend with the football creditors’ rule that pretty much states football creditors get paid first. As D&P point out, the rule has no bearing in Scotland.

  18. General Tilly says:

    On the ‘media watch’ front:

    Tom ‘I’m actually Irish’ English is pretty quiet of late, no ?

    Twitter account? Or tumbleweed strewn ghost town? You decide.

    (Oh of course, the golf is on)

  19. yojimbo56 says:

    Doon the slope says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:40 am
     0 0 Rate This
    Yohjimbo and Iceman

    Fair play to both of you, decent men.

    #######

    Soon the slope,

    I have posted on this before (in between others more cerebral and important contributions). Forgive me if I reduce it to….I love fitba, I love the Gers and it’s in my blood. You must agree that 99% of your support for your team is emotional not analytical. As an adult I have never been blinded by some of the ugliness that surrounds RFC, but you know….you live in hope and quietly do what you can.

  20. RayCharles says:

    Mikey, it appears the reason HMRC got stiffed by clubs down south is because they were never owed more than 25% of the debt.

    This is not the case with Rangers.

    Also like to point out that the scenario whereby an administrator would try to construct a CVA by selectively ignoring the Big Tax Case was raised and debated on here many months ago.

    The accepted wisdom was that HMRC would go to court if this was attempted.

    I don’t think HMRC will do walking way if Duff & Duffer try to pull this stunt.

    Indeed, if any of HMRC’s legal team have been reading this site then they will be well prepared for such an eventuality.

  21. Macfurgly says:

    paperbhoy says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:38 am

    paperbhoy – you must remember that you are Paranoid. We all are. We know this because they have told us this. Many times so we wouldn’t forget.

    I can’t wait until I hear it again.

  22. yojimbo56 says:

    Sorry (Soon) Doon the slope…. Bloody predictive texts.

  23. Doon the slope says:

    Yojimbo56

    Thanks for that. Btw, when I was asking you the question, I was also asking myself.

  24. gerry31 says:

    But rangers are too big to fail? 

    Why?

    Well, because we are the peepol

    I geeev up!

    We are several weeks on from the brilliant animation, which in my view is up there with toy story, in it’s own way of course.

    It’s been a cataclysmic day for our neighbours and yet the above summation seems to prevail as much today as it did then.

    I’ve just watched a recording of stv’s 10.30 prog. Did I really hear the Heralds Richard Wilson say ‘apart from the tax debts rangers debts are about the same as every other club’

    Hello…we are talking about the club who despite twice being offered assistance by HMRC  has accrued debt on the back of tax cheating and financial doping on a grotesque scale? 

    We are taking about total debts of around £135 million!!

    It seems that the written press are stating that such is the debt creditors are under pressure to take pennies in the pound. 

    At 10p/£ HMRC might recoup £10m and something is better than nothing, is it not?? WHAT?

    I recorded STV only to see if Dingwall could look more angry or bitter than his normal self  or to see if he was still insisting rangers would trade their way out of the problem after throwing some loose change at the taxman which he should be grateful for.

    I was disappointed he wasn’t on but I’m still in a state of disbelief . 

    “Apart from the tax debt…..” 

    To be fair to Richard, he didn’t once glour at his fellow guest as if he wanted to eat him he does have a definite form whereas Mark seems neither to begin or end in a barbapapa kind of way.

    But as to the logic , reasoning or analysis of today’s revelations..

    As I said at the beginning……”I geeeev up”

  25. Private Land says:

    yojimbo56 says:

    06/04/2012 at 1:44 am

    I completely agree with you on this. However any group, cohesive or disparate, needs a focus/charismatic leader to ‘rally the troops’. Would you agree that Brian Dempsey served this purpose in the 92-94 campaign and built a bridgehead for the Wee Bunnet to take advantage of?
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Yes, although my hopes about Dempsey were unfulfilled due to his paper tiger status, his subsequent sniping from the sidelines and employment of one Jack Irvine to fire the bullets.

    But your point is made. Dempsey was an invaluable member of the foursome that put Celtic back on the rails. I’m no fan of Matt McGlone, but for all his faults, Matt was as instrumental in taking the fans along with the Fergus camp. David Low was the chief mechanic in the operation and his political strategising was vital (although some still attribute that to Dempsey) as was his organisational skill in putting together the proxy base from which Fergus’s bid was launched.

    But the most important of all was Fergus McCann. At once a wonderfully warm and charming man – and often brutally honest and tactless. Fergus could never have been a politician, because he was perhaps the most honest and had the most integrity – and maybe the most ability – of any football executive, ever.

    You may be correct that there is no Dempsey, nor is there a McGlone or a Low involved in the efforts to save RFC, but there is no Bunnet with his moral compass which guided Celtic out of the wilderness. Poetically though, he was not regarded as the saviour of the club by the mass of the support. And this was the key to Fergus McCann – his humilty. For he never resented the lack of gratitude.

    Aside from the small matter of the £30m profit he made – completely selfless:-)

  26. Mikey says:

    RayCharles says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:53 am

    Thanks for the reply and keeping me right. Haven’t been reading the blog that long and I’m not employed in a relevant profession. So only observations and scattered thoughts from me.

    When you see the list of creditors, if it wasn’t so serious, it’s laughable. Even paperbhoy is owed.

  27. tokentim says:

    Johnboy & Goosy, Great stuff lads.
    Have you e-mailed this info to Alex or others who will be brave enough to ask the questions your blogs rightfully show?

  28. k3lly says:

    Fergus made certain promises when he took over. He was explict -up front- about what those promises were. He kept every single one of them, and left Celtic stronger for it. He never hid the fact he was in it to make money for himself – he was, first and foremost, a businessman. I didn’t grudge him that then, and never have since. I knew then how close we came.

    There are some in the Celtic family that do bear a grudge. Fair enough, we will never all agree and nor should we. It is always conflict that produces progress.

    But I would have thought in the current climate, The Bunnet would have been given just a little more respect for what he achieved in the face of adversity – let’s face it, half of Glasgow and beyond wanted indeed wished for him to fail. To a great many, at the time, it seemed impossible that he would succeed!

    I appreciate the comments re the moral compass. He had definite views, he stuck to them no matter what, and he fought for the Club when it was required and won. That he rubbed some supporters up the wrong way is undeniable. Tactless – definitely. That he left Glasgow a richer man, also undeniable. But he left us richer too, and only now I think are the boo-fans really seeing what he – and the fan’s reps who drove the “Sack the Board” campaign – did for us.

    It was a watershed moment in our Club’s history.

    I was completely at a loss to understand why Rangers could not produce an equivalent to Fergus, or Matt McGlone, or Dempsey or anyone of any substance. They should have. They should have been more self-critical – of themselves and any prospective new owner. The failure to do that, then and now, is the most perplexing aspect of this whole affair for me. What bugs me most is not “Why didn’t they listen?”, but “Why didn’t they investigate for themselves?”

    Perhaps the other posters are correct, and the Rangers support do collectively suffer from “The Man in the Big Hoose” syndrome. Message to the Bears: If the support don’t care, why should anyone else? Lose the baggage and the denial and the bunker mentality and the conviction that Scotland owes you anything – and look ahead to what you want the Club to be and fight for it, even with your new owner. It’s not easy – anyone who went through the regeneration of Celtic would know that: but you have no future at all if you don’t.

    Start with an apology: you have lots to apologize for and it’s all documented.

  29. selfassessor says:

    nipples says:
    05/04/2012 at 11:50 pm

    Nipples … don’t be a tit…… you’re confusing the argument…….. I’m not a tory …… history will prove me right about AS …… but hopefully not RFC avoiding liquidation.

  30. re howard says:

    If /when a newco is formed and if it is parachuted into the SPL, what will they do about footballing debts?
    If they pay them surely HMRC will go after them as they will be a Phoenix Company.
    If they don’t pay them uefa will take action on the clubs behalf.

  31. stunney says:

    Dutti & Frutti reckon HMRC might well be owed 93m pounds. So unless total unsecured creditors exceed 372m pounds, HMRC have over the 25 percent needed to block a CVA.

    If they tell us next week that, “When we told you total creditors were about 134m pounds we made a mistake and we’re sorry but they’re actually 375m pounds so Hector can’t block a CVA so there nanananana,” je mangerai mon chapeau, mes amis.

    And if any secured creditors are owed, let’s say, 30m pounds, there’ll be no pot for a CVA anyway.

    So, with what we know at the moment, and unless bids have been received in the 100m pounds range, it’ll be down to Hector as to whether Rangers live or die.

    If the level of outrage among the non-Rangers supporting portion of the populace is anything like mine at the moment, death notices will be getting posted in the Edinburgh Gazette etc by summertime.

  32. The Taxman Cometh says:

    Is the receiver making TGEF whole with the assets, the prepack and leaving the shell to be liquidated no longer a possible plan?

  33. What a day to spend away from reading RTC! Just catching up with the huge array of D+P stuff.

    However, the issues are solved, at least if you belive a wise person on FF!

    Take it away Albert Einstein!

    ———————————————-

    Nominally debt figure is given as £134m:

    Strip out £75m which we might not even owe, take out £8m owed to bond-holders (as if they’d want that back FFS )

    That leaves £51m, £27m of which is due to Ticketus, so that will be £10m if TBK win the bidding.

    So that leaves £34m at best.

    We are owed £3.8m from other football clubs and are trying to get back £9m from CW’s lawyers. That takes it down to £21m, £18m of which is owed to HMRC.

    That leaves £3m outstanding..

    ————————————————————–

    I assume that post is tongue in cheek…

  34. nipples says:

    What does it say about a person who always ‘plays the man and not the ball’?

    It says “I am donkey, I lack the talent for this game and I know it”.

  35. Justinian says:

    Private Land says:
    06/04/2012 at 2:26 am

    But the most important of all was Fergus McCann. At once a wonderfully warm and charming man – and often brutally honest and tactless. Fergus could never have been a politician, because he was perhaps the most honest and had the most integrity – and maybe the most ability – of any football executive, ever.
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Indeed correct. I was musing to an acquaintance the other day that the ideal personality to assume leadership at the SFA would be none other than Fergus McCann. ‘Root and Branch’ renewal of systems, personalities and objectives?

    You would better believe it. I guarantee that he would conduct himself without fear or favour – and I would certainly not exclude Celtic FC from any adverse comment or action which might arise from time to time.

    That is a measure of the man.

  36. rab says:

    Im away to blackpool for a few days.

    Nae body move.

    Ach, it’ll be quiet anyway.

    Wont it

    wont it

    dagnammit.

  37. JakeC says:

    https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/quick-recap/

    New post up

  38. rcp231 says:

    New rtc post up.

  39. Ground Zero says:

    k3lly says:
    06/04/2012 at 7:01 am

    Apart from the obvious difference in mentality between the 2 sets of fans; another reason why, in my opinion, no saviour has emerged within the bears world wide family (no laughing) is that they have continually been successful throughout this period. When the bunnet took over, Celtic were in a desparate state and there really seemed no prospect that the team would challenge seriously for honours under the previous management. A considerable percentage of the average spectator at Ibrox these days has no real recollection of the bad old days of early 80’s bears.

    Regarding the bunnet’s boo’s boy’s, I think this is often over played. My memory is that this was a short term knee jerk reaction to the bunnet sacrificing the football manager who stopped the dark side winning 10 in a row for Joke Brown. Overall, I thnk the bunnet was warmly received by the majority of the celtic family for all that he achieved during his tenure at the club, and more importantly what he helped avert by taking over the club.

    Back on topic, I still cannot comprehend how it is legal in coprorate Britain to buy the controlling interest in a distressed company for £1; leverage future income to pay off debt, but the company still owes double the debt – to you and to the company you sold off future income streams to. If this is all on the good side of the law, then we have Mr White/ Whyte all wrong, he is indeed a clever cookie, and I am in the wrong game.

  40. Hoopy 7 says:

    Good Morning.
    good to see that the MSM spin machine is at full cycle.
    Mark McGivern of the Daily Record says
    “It was the Record
    who exposed Whyte for using advance season ticket sales to buy the club. He denied it until
    the evidence was too overpowering.
    That fact is again underlined in yesterday’s report”

    Have these people no moral rectitude whatsover. Not only did they not expose it, but they stole and continue to steal facts from this site, and others.
    SHAME on the MSM if DR comments are anything to go by.

    SOS (Save our Shame) will move up a gear from this point forward. They blame Whyte but it was Minty and Whyte, seeing that the scenario for rescue was hopeless merely took advantage of the situation and added to Minty’s debt mountain.

    Stop and think, if the tax Bill is so much, just what sums were involved in being paid over in the first place and where did the money come from? Was it all RFC turnover and was this understated to pay the fiddle?

    (Sir) Fred Goodwin looks like the tooth fairy compared to what Minty has done, not only to the general economy, the Banks, and RFC but also the Tax man.

    It would be small punishment indeed but if Her Majesty’s Government have any integrity at all it should strip Murray of his Honours.

  41. mickd says:

    Lets face it not even pennies in the pound can save them now.

  42. mickd says:

    Let’s face it. Even pennies in the pound won’t save them now.

  43. droid says:

    Paul McConville says:
    06/04/2012 at 7:27 am

    denial saves us from so much hurt

  44. Ballsbustedan'a'tha' says:

    The Iceman says:
    05/04/2012 at 11:54 pm

    and with pressure on to remove his Sirness!!

    I have never referred to him by his, ‘the real tainted’ title, and alluded it should go a year ago. It simply has to.

  45. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    Private Land says:
    06/04/2012 at 1:06 am
    10 1 Rate Down
    The Iceman says:

    06/04/2012 at 12:49 am
    ______________________________________________________________________

    I think I may have posted this before in another thread. Recently, I had a chat with a former (non Celtic-supporting) colleague, who has reported on Scottish football in print and on air since the early 1960s. We talked about the RFC issues over a coffee or three and I mentioned that there seemed to be an absence of the passion shown by Celtic fans in 1992-94.

    He said that in his opinion the Celtic fans were a cohesive and unitary force fundamentally, and that they acted together as a family in the midst of that crisis. He thinks that stems from the heritage that the majority of Celtic fans share.
    On the other hand he said that his experience of Rangers fans was that they did not share a heritage in that same fashion, and that they were a much more disparate, less cohesive group as a result.

    I’m no sociologist, but it makes sense to me. Rangers fans on the blog may have an opinion also, but I have to admit that the lack of reaction, the lack of any need for accountability amongst the Rangers fans has always seemed counter-intuitive to me.

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

    PL

    you may not see this as we are all busy on the new blog, but if you do…..:-)

    I think the Celtic support were more cohesive for 1 simple reason.

    the KKW clan running the club weren’t up to the job, despite a league win in 88, it was clear which direction Celtic were going – Aberdeen and Dundee utd inflicted much damage to Celtics hopes in the early 80’s and RFC had sorted themselves out for the late 80’s

    The club were already toiling badly and had been for more than a few years – so fans already WANTED change.

    RFC supporters have jsut won 3 in a row. OK, they are not where they once were, but they are still winning – so it’s harder 1st of all to see there IS a problem, then there is the propaganda from all parties, aided by the press – so it’s hard to actually identify a focal point for their anger, never mind identify a path out of their troubles.

    Another thing that seems to be a big problem for RFC fans – they seem to think they DESERVE success, they expect a rich owner to pay the bills and carry on as normal. They don’t seem to accept ownership of their club to the same extent. “Follow Follow” seems to be very apt

  46. MikeC says:

    Has anyone thought – what if RFC(IA) win the BTC !! It may be the worst possible position since no doubt the HMRC will appeal and that could go on for another 6/12 months !!

  47. John says:

    nipples says: 06/04/2012 at 7:34 am
    “What does it say about a person who always ‘plays the man and not the ball’?

    It says “I am donkey, I lack the talent for this game and I know it”.
    ……………………….

    Awe, hee haw, hee haw, heeallways calls me that.

  48. Patrick Manson says:

    Private Land says:

    06/04/2012 at 1:06 am

    The Iceman says:

    06/04/2012 at 12:49 am
    ______________________________________________________________________

    I think I may have posted this before in another thread. Recently, I had a chat with a former (non Celtic-supporting) colleague, who has reported on Scottish football in print and on air since the early 1960s. We talked about the RFC issues over a coffee or three and I mentioned that there seemed to be an absence of the passion shown by Celtic fans in 1992-94.

    He said that in his opinion the Celtic fans were a cohesive and unitary force fundamentally, and that they acted together as a family in the midst of that crisis. He thinks that stems from the heritage that the majority of Celtic fans share.
    On the other hand he said that his experience of Rangers fans was that they did not share a heritage in that same fashion, and that they were a much more disparate, less cohesive group as a result.

    I’m no sociologist, but it makes sense to me. Rangers fans on the blog may have an opinion also, but I have to admit that the lack of reaction, the lack of any need for accountability amongst the Rangers fans has always seemed counter-intuitive to me.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Interesting point but maybe there is another way to look at it. In 1992-94 there was no internet connectivity the way there is now. Celtic supporters had to be ‘active’ and ‘cohesive’ to vent their frustration and anger. They had to be in the car park otherwise how could they make their feelings known outside games. Now the internet dissapates the anger and frustration. I don’t think Rangers supporters lack the passion and they have shown cohesion – they have developed excellent fund raising ideas (black and red scarves) and contributed money into buckets for the RFF who have bought and distributed tickets and as a whole have sold out games that would put money in the club coffers. I think that in the age of the internet though the whole “to the car park” protest movement is largely a thing of the past. People can vent their spleen and buy the scarf or tickets on line then drop their $ in a bucket at the game.

    Not sure about the common heritage argument either but that might be best left alone as this is meant to be a tax blog.

  49. Timalloy says:

    Came across this company name which I think is very appropriate on here
    DOOLITTLE AND DALLEY!! (copyright pending)

  50. Patrick Manson says:

    Hello, Hello. Is there anybody out there.

    Is anyone else missing 8 hours worth of posts between 11.18 am and 7.25 pm?

    Pink Floyd FC

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,481 other followers

%d bloggers like this: