| Rangers homepage |
Quotes
David Murray (Nov 1992), the owner and architect of Rangers remarkable turn-around, said: “I don’t envy their task of raising money in the current economic climate. They will find it very, very difficult and I don’t want to sound smart, but I honestly do wish them the best of luck.” ‘
Tom English, June 19, 1994, “Celtic supporters are waiting to see if McCann can do a David Murray at Celtic Park. Since his arrival at Ibrox, the flamboyant Rangers chairman has lead his club back into the promised land of European football by ruling the roost with an iron fist and combining it with an astute business acumen and making the right footballing appointments.”
Bill Leckie, Daily Record, February 6, 1995, “Murray – for all his knocking talk on TV at the weekend – could buy and sell the SFA. He runs a business empire that makes football’s turnover look like that of a corner shop. Why not use his acumen and marketing power to sell the game?”
Hugh Adam (Rangers Director 2002): “Adam, however, responded by insisting that, far from being discretionary, the money paid via EBTs was, in effect, wages.‘It was effectively salary and should have been included in the players’ wage slips,’ he said. ‘It was a way of attracting players into the club. I think he (Murray) was aware that if he did that, the players would be quite happy and would stay with Rangers. If someone can give you an extra twenty grand a year that you don’t have to account for, then you’d jump at it.‘I don’t see how you can have that kind of contract and just take a bit out of it as you go along.””
“[C. Whyte is] finally bringing the curtain down on one of the longest-running sagas in Scottish football.”
Keith. Jackson, Daily Record 2010
Darrell King on Whyte Nov 2010:“The lifelong Gers supporter – who made his fortune as a venture capitalist…”
“I’ve felt from the start that Whyte should be taken seriously. I believed he had the financial muscle to buy out Sir Minty”
Andy Goram 30/03/11
“I’ve had my doubts about Whyte from the start”
Andy Goram 08/03/12
“I keep on reading that the previous board is in some way to blame for the financial problems the club is currently facing. That seems to me like people are deliberately not understanding the situation. Because, to all intents and purposes, when the takeover was completed the club was in its best ever financial position. It was debt free. All that was required from the new owner was a level of investment in the squad and in cash flow and the club should have gone from strength to strength. To try to blame previous directors for what has happened since then makes no sense. Only one person has done this to Rangers.”
Walter Smith just doesn’t get (Mar 2012)
“If it is held to be true…we can say with certainty that the game of football in Scotland has been corrupt for 15 years or so.”
Channel 4 — Tony McKelvie (Mar 2012)
‘Interesting SFA have just accused me of ‘lying’, ‘pig-headedness’ and then put the phone down mid-conversation….all because I put their own statement back to them that Campbell Ogilvie denied knowing about EBTs at Rangers And suggested there might be a perceived conflict of interest in his current position until the investigations are complete.‘
Alex Thompson Channel 4 (Mar 2012)
Real Radio reported that Walter Smith and Sandy Jardine etc launched the Rangers fighting fund yesterday and big Walter told fans to make pledges of support to assembly@bluenose.co.uk. What he should have said was assembly@thebluenose.co.uk. Turns out that the first one is the email address of a husband and wife performing clown act who go under the name of Mr and Mrs Custard!!! (13 March 2012)
Rangers were once before in financial difficulty. It was in the 1920’s when my grandfather, James Kelly (a former Scotland centre-half), was chairman of Celtic. Rangers had a temporary cash flow problem and their board came out to his house in Blantyre to explain the problem and seek help. Celtic gave them an unconditional short-term loan. The fact that Rangers felt able to ask and that Celtic willingly responded indicates that both clubs were aware of their inter-dependence.
(Michael Kelly, ex-Celtic Director March 2012)
“Any such outcome would mean that the interest of fans and the media in Scottish football would inevitably wane. Anyone who says anything else is kidding themselves.”
(David Murray Mar 2012)
David Murray ” I don’t think that we’ve done as wrong as they say we have” on EBT’s to Sky News (19 Mar 2012)
“Craig Whyte’s a distraction – Murray’s the real issue. He mirrors Fred Goodwin – expansionist dreams, dynamism then crash and burn…
Alex Thomson (Channel 4, on twitter 19 Mar 2012)
David Murray (March 2012):“Celtic, a fine institution a great club, needs Rangers… anybody who says different is kidding themselves!”
“I do not believe that there will be a single person in Scotland who has dealt with both gentlemen that would believe that Craig Whyte had the capacity to dupe David Murray.”
Major Hun shareholder Dave King (March 2012)
“Various: I can perfectly easily clarify my own position re Rangers. They look morally bankrupt (no pun) in all of this.”
Graham Spiers (Twitter, 11 April 2012)
BBC Interview Q: One emotionally very, very divisive issue, which to this day divides Scottish football, and that is are Rangers a new club? What’s your view?
Craig Whyte: Yes, obviously they are.
Source: BBC – https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51515862 (2020)
Articles
Stephen Henderson delves into the story of how Glasgow Rangers FC went bust
Just the facts
On last Tuesday Rangers Football Club (RFC), under the control of owner Craig Whyte, entered administration and were docked 10 league points by the SPL. The proximate cause was £9 million of unpaid PAYE and NI remittances subtracted as normal from players and other employee’s wages but withheld from HMRC.
They leave behind a trail of unpaid creditors, including millions in player fees to other clubs, ticket money owed to several SPL clubs, fees to police and stewards for match day security, and a potential liability of £49 million for a controversial tax avoidance vehicle (the EBT, or “the big tax bill”) to be decided by a tribunal very soon.
All this follows an earlier court ordered seizure of around £3 million (the “wee tax bill”) earlier in the season. Then there is the controversial £25 million or so they have taken from a finance company called Ticketus to purchase a share of 3 or possibly 4 years future season tickets, and secured upon… well, who knows? This is a key question hanging over RFC future.
And what exactly was this Ticketus money used for if all these taxes and bills have gone unpaid? The administrators have confirmed that this money did not pass through RFC accounts. When Craig Whyte bought the club for a symbolic £1 last season he also had to pay off the bank debt to HBOS of £20 million.
Craig Whyte
He denies that he used the Ticketus money – effectively RFC own revenues to pay off their existing bank debt – but as of last night this looks increasingly likely to be exactly what happened.
Craig Whyte has previously been disqualified from being a director for 7 years after cheating the HMRC and other creditors when his company Vital UK was liquidated. He has been a director of many other companies but few still exist.
All in all the minutiae of RFC finances are very opaque, as Craig Whyte has avoided publishing audited accounts since he took charge and the administrators Duff and Phelps are not very forthcoming (yet).
The wider picture is crystal clear though. Even if RFC somehow win their ‘big tax case’ and can engineer a quite incredible deal with HMRC and other creditors they (or rather their parent company) have still signed away most of their season ticket sales for the next few years, effectively they have spent tomorrows revenues already. That is the highly optimistic outcome.
How did it come to this?
In truth though, whilst the reputation of Craig Whyte has been sullied, he is not the real cause of Rangers’ problems.
They have been brought low by the hubris of their previous owner Sir David Murray in pursuing a vainglorious Champions League dream, his banker friends that let them run up unsustainable debts, a supine board that approved a suicidal tax dodge, and a docile Scottish media that denied, ignored, or perhaps just didn’t understand RFC financial and legal problems.
Yesterday a number of irate RFC fans gathered outside Ibrox to protest their plight to the gathered media, but when one was heard to bewail to a reporter, “No-one warned us!,” there was an audible crash of jaws dropping all over Glasgow. For years Celtic fans with a business background had been poring over RFC accounts and predicting certain doom. Wishful thinking?
Close to a hundred million of debts run-up during RFCs earlier futile 90s assault on the Champions League were absorbed into Sir David Murrays parent company (MIH), but a persistent deficit of tens of millions was being run and the club was only deemed sustainable by auditors due to the remarkable valuation of club assets – and in particular their stadium Ibrox.
Then came the credit crunch and Rangers previous lenders Bank of Scotland were replaced by the new merged Lloyds-HBOS (or rather Uberior Capital, a wholly owned subsidiary) – and they didn’t like what they saw. HBOS were owed close to £1 billion by MIH (including the absorbed £100 million or so RFC losses) and around a further £20 million by RFC itself.
Then RFC had some monumentally bad luck. During an investigation over player transfer payments, Ibrox was raided by investigators and documents seized.
Nothing is believed to have come of this particular investigation. Coincidentally or not, shortly after this rumours started circulating of a potentially very large liability to the HMRC (the £49m “big tax case”).
RFC at this time actually went through a successful period on the field winning SPL titles, but when the board continued to spend lavishly on players, the bank appointed a controlling director and effectively demanded the club be sold. The RFC debts were small change compared to the parent company MIH but pressurizing or even downsizing RFC was deemed politically toxic.
The media
All of this was little reported by the Scottish Press.
The best that can be said of them is that they did not understand what was happening, but some would say that the sports reporters in particular were fans with keyboards, or that their readers and listeners didn’t want stories like that.
Alternatively you might say that most sports reporting was inside gossip from RFC or other the clubs, lobby briefing, churnalism — not investigation. On the debts and “big tax case” their RFC sources were understandably silent.
However Celtic fans knew all about it. They were long disenchanted with the Scottish Press and had developed a thriving online community of podcasts, fan forums, blogs, and websites.
An Irish freelance reporter Phil McGiollabhain was the first to find a reliable source that confirmed the £49 million tax bill, and thereafter he and others in this online community dissected every new development in RFC plight with glee and unrivalled accuracy. In particular the Rangers Tax Case blog and their various contributors have become the experts on all RFC travails over the last couple of years.
Indeed in the past few weeks, as the Scottish press have finally been forced into covering this story properly, they have taken to regurgitating months old information from Rangers Tax Case as “exclusives”.
Nevertheless when Craig Whyte finally took RFC off David Murray and HBOS hands near the end of last season the Scottish Press ignored the incredulous derision of the Celtic blogosphere and hailed him as a “billionaire” savior who would invest millions into the club.
Celtic fans were momentarily taken aback having initially christened Craig Whytes bid as a #fakeover on Twitter, just more moonbeams from the Ibrox club.
Why after all would someone buy a club with an impending £49 million debt hanging over it? So when Craig Whyte paid off the bank and bough RFC from Murray for a pound their fans were jubilant. And yet despite this the question still remained unanswered – Why would someone buy a club with an impending £49m debt hanging over it?
What now?
In many ways the RFC story is Scotland’s answer to the phone-hacking scandal as it involves a nexus of powerful intertwined themes: A complicit media, financial cronyism, the credit crunch, tax evasion, politics, and of course celebrity of the best kind: Footballers.
To me however, it shines a light on a wider theme. Many are for the first time looking at RFC and particularly Craig Whyte’s recent maneuverings and asking: How do they get away with that? Shouldn’t someone go to jail? If that is not illegal, shouldn’t it be?
Craig Whyte is somewhat a figure of fun in Scotland; few believe him a billionaire these days and fewer still a ‘savior’. And yet is he really so different to the previous owner David Murray, whose MIH ran up close to £1 billion in bad debts now saddled upon the taxpayer owned HBOS?
The politics of the situation are now toxic. Politicians from the SNP and Scottish Labour initially made positive noises about a favorable settlement for RFC although it’s not clear that they can influence HMRC in any way.
In recent days most have gone quiet though. They have been taken aback by the negative response from the Scottish public, on phone-ins, on letters pages, and on Twitter. There is a very sizeable part of the Scottish public, far larger than just the Celtic fans that do not want to see an easy deal for RFC.
Some point to Donaghy of Govan the nearby construction company with 175 employees, almost the same as RFC, who always paid their taxes, went bust last week – but attracted no calls for clemency, or indeed any support from politicians.
Other Scottish football fans remember well the words of Sir David Murray himself in 2002 when one of his own companies pushed Airdrieonians FC into liquidation for a debt of around £30,000:
“I feel very sorry for Airdrie and their supporters but we’re running a business. We have given them repeated warnings and felt they were playing on our good nature.”
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/02/rangers-fc-how-a-market-leader-went-bust/
Guardian 24 Feb 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/23/rangers-administrators-craig-whyte-police?CMP=twt_gu
Rangers’ administrators have passed on a dossier relating to Craig Whyte’s takeover of the club last May to Strathclyde police.
The information largely surrounds whether it was legitimate for Whyte to use funds raised by the sale of future season-ticket monies to repay an £18m Rangers debt to the Lloyds Banking Group.
The club’s administrators, Duff and Phelps, are legally bound to report any matters of concern to the police as they continue an assessment of Rangers’ complex financial situation.
A statement from Strathclyde police said: “We have been passed information from the administrators of Rangers Football Club.
“It is currently being examined and we will be contacting the Crown Office and procurator fiscal in due course. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”
A police source added it would take days to properly assess what information has been received. Whyte has stringently denied any wrongdoing, branding it “clearly ludicrous” that any criminality has occurred during his association with Rangers.
Already, the former Rangers chairman Alastair Johnston has challenged Whyte’s position as the company’s secured creditor by formally questioning whether the businessman met every obligation outlined when he bought out Sir David Murray’s majority stake.
The Scottish Premier League champions were plunged into administration on Tuesday last week, as it emerged £9m was due to Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs in VAT and PAYE.
Amid reports that up to £15m is actually owed by the club in tax, the club have stressed that this figure includes a historic £2.8m plus interest and penalties as part of a separate case.
Rangers’ administrators have said it will be next week before the full extent of staff cuts becomes clear. On Thursday the club’s director of football, Gordon Smith, and chief operating officer, Ali Russell, unsurprisingly became the first to lose their jobs.
Smith departed with a swipe at Whyte. He said: “I would make the point that I was very frustrated in my job as I was unable to fulfil the job specification which was originally outlined for me.
“This was to control the major aspects of the football department outwith the first-team operations. These were to include recruitment, scouting, transfer negotiations and youth development. I wasn’t in control of any of these activities despite constantly making it clear to Craig Whyte that this was to be my remit.
“I outlined my medium- to long-term strategies for the club on numerous occasions to no avail. There’s no point in being a director of football unless you can control these areas, so, in that respect, I’m totally comfortable with being made redundant at this time.”
Paul Clark, Rangers’ joint administrator, said: “Meetings have also been held with [the manager] Ally McCoist and we had discussions regarding the potential impact of the administration process on the football department and we will continue to consult fully with him.
“It is clearly understood by all, including the players, that the football department costs will come under review as is the case with all departments within the business. No decisions regarding staffing in any department have been taken at this point and will not be taken until next week.”
The administrators face a desperate race against time to secure the Uefa licence which would permit Rangers to play in European competition next season. Aside from administration, the club are yet to publish audited accounts to the period of 30 June 2011.
Celtic are wrong to dance on Rangers’ grave (WITH A TRANSLATION)
By Mark Hateley on Feb 24, 12 08:29 AM Daily Record
CONGRATULATIONS, Celtic. This year’s title is yours and even though I believe it’s tainted that’s none of your concern. (Yeah right Mark, that’ll be the spoonful of sugar)
It’s not Celtic’s fault Rangers have ended up in a mess of their own making. (At least you got that bit right)
So Neil Lennon and his players have every right to milk the moment from here on in until the medals are passed around in May. (Milking Mark? Who’s milking?)
The club’s supporters are also entitled to enjoy the rest of the cakewalk. (Shockeroony, football fans ripping the piss… whatever next).
I’d prefer just to leave them to it. Congratulate them and move on. (So that’s why your writing this then Mark). I just wish they had the good grace to do likewise, (Canny take it eh?), as my club attempts to battle for its very existence and good people are worried sick about their jobs. (They weren’t worried when they were taking the bread out of other people’s mouths, but hey ho).
I find the tone that has been set by the men at the top at Celtic Park in recent days and weeks has been ill-judged, (Yeah I thought it was right on the money too), at best and, at worst, deliberately inflammatory. (LOL, you noticed, I didn’t think you were that clever, note to self; must be more subtle).
Let’s be honest here, Rangers are lying in the gutter, bleeding badly. (Jeez, you don’t miss much Mark). There is no need for the likes of Lennon and Peter Lawwell to continue to sink the boot in when our wounds have been self-inflicted. (Of course there isn’t Mark, just as there’s no need to have another scoop of ice cream after your dinner).
I would hope Rangers, as a football club, would conduct themselves with a bit more class if the shoe was on the other foot. In fact, I’m sure they would. (Rangers, as a football club, couldn’t even conduct themselves as a football club Mark, for years if the shoe wasn’t on the correct foot, the foot never got in the door).
Calling for Rangers to be stripped of titles? Political manipulating and manoeuvring in order to make sure no mercy is shown should their rivals get back on their feet? (…and your point caller?… are you suggesting we should reward them for cheating?).
All this crass stuff about celebrating the death of Rangers with bowls of jelly and ice cream? Is that really necessary? (Of course you’re correct there Mark, it could just as easily have been blancmange and pineapple slices, but that doesn’t scan into the song), It smacks of the behaviour of people who hate Rangers more than they love their own club. (Yep, correct again Mark, it smacks, a pure bastard when it comes back to bite you isn’t it?). It reflects very badly on them all. (Badly for whom?)
No one expects Celtic to shed a tear over the state Rangers have got themselves into. (Thank God for that, I was beginning to feel gulty there)
But, even so, there is a venom about their recent reaction which has shocked me and should embarrass the more level-headed, decent people at Parkhead. I hope it does at any rate. (Venom….. I’m in an effin kink, don’t confuse level headed at Parkhead with flat headed at Ibrox Mark)
It saddens me that these extreme times seem to bring out the worst in supporters on both sides of Glasgow. (Extreme times is it…. Don’t tell me there’s an asteroid heading for earth; and here’s me thinking it’s a hemorrhoid getting removed from the arse of humanity).
I include Rangers supporters in that because last week, when they were all hurting so badly, some of them chose to bring further shame on Ibrox by singing the kind of songs that have been making us cringe for so long. Thanks for that lads. Just what the club needed in a time of crisis. (Now that’s surely magnanimous of you Mark, but I recall you weren’t cringing when you were up to your knees in the wee Rangers club; there’s no virgin like an old prostitute)
As much as I would prefer for Celtic to concentrate on enjoying their success, (Don’t you worry son, we enjoy every bit of what we work for), I would also hope Rangers and their fans can act with dignity and decorum as they fight to get through this, (That’ll be a first then), one of the most horrible periods in the club’s 140-year history. (Agree with you there Mark, it’ll be on a par with the day Souness signed Mojo).
These are the qualities the club was built on and these same qualities have never been more important than they are right now. (Sectarianism, racism, exclusion etc etc etc…. that kind of thing do you mean Mark?)
In fact, I’d go as far as to say how the Rangers support acts at this crucial juncture may decide the very fate of their club. (That far eh?)
It’s time for them to think smart. (Now that’s the whole plan effed right there). Singing stupid songs of defiance is hardly what’s needed now. (But they can’t change their DNA Mark) They have to take a step back from all that nonsense and attempt to get a clear view of the bigger picture. (How far do you want them to step back Mark? They fly in from Canada and Australia to do it).
It’s not about mindless bravado, (Nae dough three in a row), it’s about making the right choices and ensuring the club they love is around another 140 years from now. (Has nobody actually explained to you Mark, death is terminal).
There is no shame in being duped. Let’s be honest, it happens to us all. (You more than most it would appear Mark)
But what’s the old saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (Souness, Minty, Smith, Advocaat, McCoist, Ellis, Whyte, Duffer and Whelps….HELLO)
They should have those words engraved on the front doors of Ibrox as a permanent reminder and a warning to the next man who gets his hands on the keys. (… and the next one right in here please….)
Yes, the Rangers support is just about to realise how powerful it really is now it is galvanised again and pulling in the same direction. (The same direction as what?)
These fans are about to become the king makers and that’s why they should behave in a manner befitting the club they represent. (Jeeezuz they think they can alter the line of accession now… talk about deluded).
The next man who steps up to the plate will expect them to scrutinise his every move like never before. The fans will demand that, from now on, the people at the top are open and transparent. They deserve nothing less. (I really don’t think you’ve quite got he concept of defunct Mark)
What the future holds is still unclear. (Defunct Mark… defunct). In the short term, we can only hope the administrators find what they are looking for to keep the business going, (The missing warchest perhaps), and then had it over to a safe pair of hands. (Christ, they’re bringing Andy Gorams back).
Hopefully the time will come soon when the fans are being asked to throw their united support behind a new regime. (….roll another one…. Just like the other one…)
In an ideal world a group of well meaning, wealthy and reputable Rangers supporters will step forward to claim control as a consortium to make sure that, never again, the club is left in the hands of just one man. (I have had a look at the Rangers books with the intention of investing in the club, but I’m not prepared to put my money in and wave goodbye to it,,Sir Tom hunter)
If all these interested parties can find a way to club together for the greater good and drag Rangers away from the brink I’m positive the rank and file won’t be slow in identifying them as the men who saved them from their darkest hour. (Rangers are like the eejit who jumped off the Empire State Building, believing he could fly, as he passed the 50th floor on the way down he was heard to say… see I told you!)
It’s time for Rangers men to stand up and be counted. It’s time for the club to rid itself of all the old unwanted baggage so that Rangers can be proud of itself again for the fantastic football club it always has been. (Right you are Mark, maybe you could start up another website rangersmenbecounteddotcom where Rangers men could pledge to satnd up and be counted)
So let Celtic get on with celebrating their title (WHooooHOOOO)- a title they somehow failed to win throughout the last three years of financial troubles (£36 million Wattie spent on three titles… some skint eh?)- and let Rangers get on with the painful process of putting their club back together. (You REALLY don’t get it Mark do you?)
Celtic are wrong to dance on Rangers’ grave
Daily Record
By Mark Hateley on Feb 24, 12 08:29 AM in rangers
CONGRATULATIONS, Celtic. This year’s title is yours and even though I believe it’s tainted that’s none of your concern.
It’s not Celtic’s fault Rangers have ended up in a mess of their own making.
So Neil Lennon and his players have every right to milk the moment from here on in until the medals are passed around in May.
The club’s supporters are also entitled to enjoy the rest of the cakewalk.
I’d prefer just to leave them to it. Congratulate them and move on. I just wish they had the good grace to do likewise as my club attempts to battle for its very existence and good people are worried sick about their jobs.
I find the tone that has been set by the men at the top at Celtic Park in recent days and weeks has been ill-judged at best and, at worst, deliberately inflammatory.
Let’s be honest here, Rangers are lying in the gutter, bleeding badly. There is no need for the likes of Lennon and Peter Lawwell to continue to sink the boot in when our wounds
have been self-inflicted.
I would hope Rangers, as a football club, would conduct themselves with a bit more class if the shoe was on the other foot. In fact, I’m sure they would.
Calling for Rangers to be stripped of titles? Political manipulating and manoeuvring in order to make sure no mercy is shown should their rivals get back on their feet?
All this crass stuff about celebrating the death of Rangers with bowls of jelly and ice cream? Is that really necessary? It smacks of the behaviour of people who hate Rangers more than they love their own club. It reflects very badly on them all.
No one expects Celtic to shed a tear over the state Rangers have got themselves into.
But, even so, there is a venom about their recent reaction which has shocked me and should embarrass the more level-headed, decent people at Parkhead. I hope it does at any rate.
It saddens me that these extreme times seem to bring out the worst in supporters on both sides of Glasgow.
I include Rangers supporters in that because last week, when they were all hurting so badly, some of them chose to bring further shame on Ibrox by singing the kind of songs that have been making us cringe for so long. Thanks for that lads. Just what the club needed in a time of crisis.
As much as I would prefer for Celtic to concentrate on enjoying their success, I would also hope Rangers and their fans can act with dignity and decorum as they fight to get through this, one of the most horrible periods in the club’s 140-year history.
These are the qualities the club was built on and these same qualities have never been more important than they are right now.
In fact, I’d go as far as to say how the Rangers support acts at this crucial juncture may decide the very fate of their club.
It’s time for them to think smart. Singing stupid songs of defiance is hardly what’s needed now. They have to take a step back from all that nonsense and attempt to get a clear view of the bigger picture.
It’s not about mindless bravado, it’s about making the right choices and ensuring the club they love is around another 140 years from now.
There is no shame in being duped. Let’s be honest, it happens to us all.
But what’s the old saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
They should have those words engraved on the front doors of Ibrox as a permanent reminder and a warning to the next man who gets his hands on the keys.
Yes, the Rangers support is just about to realise how powerful it really is now it is galvanised again and pulling in the same direction.
These fans are about to become the king makers and that’s why they should behave in a manner befitting the club they represent.
The next man who steps up to the plate will expect them to scrutinise his every move like never before. The fans will demand that, from now on, the people at the top are open and transparent. They deserve nothing less.
What the future holds is still unclear. In the short term, we can only hope the administrators find what they are looking for to keep the business going and then had it over to a safe pair of hands.
Hopefully the time will come soon when the fans are being asked to throw their united support behind a new regime.
In an ideal world a group of well meaning, wealthy and reputable Rangers supporters will step forward to claim control as a consortium to make sure that, never again, the club is left in the hands of just one man.
If all these interested parties can find a way to club together for the greater good and drag Rangers away from the brink I’m positive the rank and file won’t be slow in identifying them as the men who saved them from their darkest hour.
It’s time for Rangers men to stand up and be counted. It’s time for the club to rid itself of all the old unwanted baggage so that Rangers can be proud of itself again for the fantastic football club it always has been.
So let Celtic get on with celebrating their title – a title they somehow failed to win throughout the last three years of financial troubles – and let Rangers get on with the painful process of putting their club back together.
Neil Lennon
The Sun
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homesport/4154836/lennon-in-title-blast-at-hateley.html
NEIL LENNON last night slated Rangers legend Mark Hateley and branded him an EMBARRASSMENT.
comment on this story 0 comment
The Celtic boss was seething over a bitter rant from Hateley against him and his champions-elect.
The ex-Gers striker slammed Lennon and the Hoops hierarchy for making what he called ‘inflammatory’ comments about administration-hit Rangers.
Lenny was fuming at what he reckoned was Hateley branding Celtic’s likely title win ‘tainted’ because of Gers’ worries.
Lennon and Hoops chief Peter Lawwell spoke out strongly on Gers’ downfall and the gaffer stands by their words. He said: “Mark’s brought this up two weeks after we’ve done the interviews, so why he’s bringing it up now, I don’t know. I find it embarrassing.
“It caused a lot of amusement among us. At the end of last season I said there were a lot of people outside the game who don’t put anything constructive into it. It’s just take, take, take.
“And Mark, I’d put into that bracket. I don’t know where he’s coming from with his comments about us dancing on Rangers’ grave. That is completely misconstrued.
“In his opening paragraph he basically says ‘I don’t care what you think, but your title’s tainted’. To me that’s disrespectful and inflammatory to the supporters of this club, the club itself and certainly my players.
“Basically it’s just PUB talk. Someone in his position should know better.
“So if anybody’s being inflammatory about the whole situation it’s him.
“We’d still be well clear without Rangers being in administration and the ten-point penalty.”
Lennon added: “Hateley is someone who has played the game and should know the game.
“We’ve never mentioned dancing on Rangers’ grave at all. We haven’t taken a gloating theme to it.
“He’s using the words dignity and class — well Rangers are the ones under investigation.
“They’re the ones who the police have been called in to look at.
“We’ve done nothing wrong. We’ve played the game on the pitch as honestly as we can — and off the pitch we do our business properly. It was a cheap shot from Hateley.
“Our fans won’t take a blind bit of notice of what Mark says or thinks. And neither will we.”
Celtic boss Neil Lennon blasts back at Mark Hateley over his Rangers rant
Daily Record
Feb 26 2012 By Mark Guidi, Sunday Mail
NEIL Lennon last night blasted back at Mark Hateley for accusing him of being disrespectful and dancing on Rangers’ grave.
In his column for our sister paper the Daily Record, the Gers legend claimed Celtic boss Lennon and Hoops chief executive Peter Lawwell had made inflammatory comments about the dire financial situation at Ibrox.
He also insisted Celtic’s impending title win would be tainted because of the 10-point penalty his former club suffered for going into administration earlier this month.
Those comments outraged the Parkhead faithful and Lennon joined the punters in expressing his anger yesterday.
He said: “Mark’s comments have caused a lot of amusement among us. At the end of last season I said there were a lot of people outside of the game who don’t put anything constructive into the game and just take, take, take.
“I’d put Mark into that bracket. I don’t know where he’s coming from. He uses inflammatory tones about us dancing on Rangers’ grave, which is completely misconstrued.
“In his opening paragraph he basically says: ‘I don’t care what you think but your title’s tainted.’ Again, to me, that’s disrespectful and inflammatory to our supporters, the club itself and certainly my players.
“Basically, it’s just pub talk. Someone in his position should know better.
“If anybody’s being inflammatory about the whole situation it’s him. We’d still be clear at the top without the 10-point penalty.
“I find it embarrassing. He’s entitled to his opinion but it’s one we don’t agree with.
“Mark is someone who has played the game and should know football.
“We’ve never mentioned dancing on Rangers’ grave. We haven’t taken a gloating theme. He’s using the words ‘dignity’ and ‘class’ – well Rangers are the ones under investigation, they’re the ones who the police have been called in to look at.”
The Celtic boss also insisted both himself and Lawwell weren’t stirring up trouble when they answered questions about the possible extinction of Rangers in the aftermath of administration.
He said: “We were asked the question: ‘Do we need a strong Rangers’ and we don’t.
“The question wasn’t: ‘Could you do without Rangers?’ The question was :‘Do you need a strong Rangers?’ and we said: ‘No.’
“We are self sufficient. I found the tainted title tag very disrespectful.
“We’ve done nothing wrong. We’ve played the game on the pitch as honestly as we can and off the pitch we do our business properly.
“We were already ahead of Rangers before they went into administration. We were also on a strong run and still in all of the competitions.
“It’s a poor excuse to try to devalue what we’re doing here – a very cheap shot.
“These guys have a platform and they lack credibility and responsibility in what they write.
“It’s not a shame for our supporters. The fans won’t take a blind bit of notice of what Mark Hateley says or thinks. And neither will we.
“But I thought his column was pretty poor. He has been banging the Rangers propaganda drum for a long time.
“There’s no impartiality in what he writes. As I’ve said before, he’s one of these people who take, take, take and don’t put anything back into the game – on a constructive basis.”
Clubs urged to contact HMRC
Football365.com
Scottish clubs facing financial difficulties because of the administration proceedings at Rangers should contact HMRC if they need help.
: 29/02/12
Treasury Minister David Gauke rebuffed calls for tax officials to proactively contact the 11 other clubs in the Scottish Premier League offering assistance.
A Westminster Hall debate, secured by Labour MP Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife), had debated the role of HMRC and the tax liabilities of Scottish football clubs.
Docherty hit out at the management of Rangers under owner Craig Whyte, and claimed the club had not paid PAYE or VAT to HMRC since May last year. He also told MPs two clubs were owed ticket money by Rangers.
Docherty said: “The TV deal in Scotland is worth approximately 1% of the deal south of the border. The annual wage of a Dunfermline player is less than the weekly salary of a Manchester City, Chelsea or Manchester United squad player.
“The recent events at Rangers FC cannot be seen in isolation.”
Docherty described the ticketing debts owed by Rangers to Dundee and Dunfermline as “simply disgraceful”.
He said: “This money does not and never has belonged to Rangers. It’s not only morally wrong, to hold it is nothing short of theft.”
And Docherty said it was known money was also owed to other clubs, including Hearts.
So he asked the minister: “I would like HMRC to proactively contact the other 11 clubs to establish what liabilities they have as a result of Rangers going into administration.
“I believe it is right and proper all 12 clubs should meet by the end of the season their obligations to the taxpayer.
“But they need to be given space to sort out the mess caused by Craig Whyte.”
Responding to the debate, Gauke said: “Of course Rangers going into administration is a huge event, not just for Rangers but for all the clubs in the Scottish Premier League.
“HMRC are conscious of that and I’m sure will listen sympathetically to any approach where this has caused serious short term financial difficulties.
“I think the onus is on the other clubs to take action, not on HMRC. There is no reason to delay contacting HMRC and they will be very happy to engage with clubs who have particular issues.”
Speaking earlier in the debate, Conservative MP Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) said: “It would help football a lot if there was transparency on the ownership of clubs and the major assets of the clubs so we can see who controls them and where the money comes from.”
SNP MP Pete Wishart said he was disappointed at the thin attendance for the debate, which saw only two back bench speeches other than that of Docherty.
He said: “We get so few opportunities to discuss Scottish issues…yet not one of (my Scottish colleagues) could be bothered to turn up.
“I think that’s a disgrace and says a lot about my Scottish colleagues.”
Wishart told the debate it would be “inconceivable” for Scottish football to exist without Rangers.
And he said: “Others are experiencing just some real, real difficulties and pressure.”
Celticfc.net
CELTIC Chief Executive Peter Lawwell has today set the record straight with an open letter to the Daily Record newspaper, following a number of stories concerning tickets for the game against Rangers at Ibrox on March 25.
The open letter will appear on the Daily Record website today (Thursday) and will also be printed in a prominent position in Friday´s edition of the newspaper. The letter reads:
Dear Sir,
I am writing with regards to stories which have appeared in the Daily Record over the last few days concerning tickets for the forthcoming match between Celtic and Rangers.
Having not been given the opportunity to comment on these stories prior to them being printed, it is important that Celtic´s position is made clear:
• There was no agreement for Celtic to pay in advance for these match tickets. Therefore, the accusation that Celtic ‘reneged’ on an agreement is wrong.
• The actions of Celtic Football Club have not threatened jobs at Rangers. Any suggestion to the contrary is also wrong.
• There is no ‘bust up’. Indeed we are pleased that yesterday (Wednesday) we received our allocation of tickets for the match from the Administrators of Rangers Football Club.
• We will sell these in the normal manner and will abide by the rules of the Scottish Premier League.
While we have no desire to become involved in the business of any other football club, we felt it very important that we set the record straight and in doing so protect the reputation of Celtic Football Club.
Peter Lawwell
Chief Executive
Celtic Football Club
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/whytes-lawyers-in-bankruptcy-fear.16903554
Whyte’s lawyers in bankruptcy fear
Victoria Weldon and Helen McArdle
THE law firm at the heart of Craig Whyte’s Rangers takeover could face bankruptcy if a legal ruling forces it to pay out millions of pounds for its involvement in an alleged sham investment scheme.
The revelation comes as Rangers players prepare to learn their fate, with the administrators expected to outline the toll of redundancies on the squad today.
Solicitors Collyer Bristow – the London-based firm Whyte hired to oversee his purchase of Rangers last year – are awaiting a court decision as a joint defendant in the £50 million case, which has been raised at the High Court in London by 500 investors. The claim against the firm concerns a complex investment scheme, known as Innovator One.
However, it has been alleged the initiative – a tax-advantage vehicle which Collyer Bristow is accused of promoting – was a fraudulent scam and certain legal conditions were never fulfilled.
The company is alleged to be liable for any dishonest conduct of the individuals who organised the scheme. It is also accused of acting negligently and breaching both contract and fiduciary duties. A four-month hearing on the case ended last month and a ruling is due later this year.
There are concerns that if the firm loses the case it will have insufficient funds to cover potential losses, amid claims of negligence by its insurance broker, Lockton Companies International.
Collyer Bristow has since launched another legal action against Lockton in a bid to ensure the money will be available if it is forced to pay out.
The solicitors alleged Lockton failed to put adequate insurance cover in place during the period of the Innovator One claims. The law firm claims it could be on the brink of collapse if it does not resolve the shortfall. A full hearing on that issue will be heard in May.
Meanwhile, administrators Duff and Phelps are expected to make an announcement on staffing levels at Rangers today, amid speculation some first-team regulars could be heading for the exit door.
In a statement issued yesterday, they said discussions were “ongoing regarding potential cost-saving measures”.
In an interview yesterday, Whyte insisted the cuts were necessary to “make Rangers a stronger business”, and re- iterated his belief he had not been responsible for any financial wrong-doing during his tenure.
“Every penny is in the club and every penny is accounted for,” he said.
It coincided with a statement from Ticketus – which paid £24m to secure the right to sell the club’s future season tickets in a deal which provided cash for Whyte’s takeover – calling for a “rapid and successful conclusion” to the administration process.
The company said it was “committed to going to the lengths necessary to ensure the future of the club is preserved and its agreement with Ticketus fulfilled”.
In a move that is bound to be seen as a swipe at Rangers, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander will court controversy today by comparing tax dodgers to benefit cheats, and making a specific reference to football clubs.
He will tell the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference in Inverness: “People who dodge taxes are on the same moral plan as benefits cheats. Whether you are a wealthy person or a small business, a football club or a bank, our message is simple – you must pay the tax you owe and we will make sure you do.”
Celtic don’t need Rangers, says Peter Lawwell
By Chris McLaughlin Senior Football Reporter, BBC Scotland
Feb 2012
Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell insists his club “don’t need Rangers” to flourish financially.
Rangers are awaiting the verdict of a long-running tax case that could place the future of the Ibrox club in doubt.
But Lawwell says the eventuality of their Old Firm rivals going bust “would have no material effect on Celtic”.
“We look after ourselves,” Lawwell told BBC Scotland. “We don’t rely on any other club. We are in a decent position, we’re very strong.”
Celtic’s interim financial results for the second half of 2011 showed a profit of £180,000 – significantly down from the £7m at the end of the previous year.
Continue reading the main story
“I’m disappointed to look at the performance of Scottish teams in Europe and the effect that that has on co-efficient”
The Old Firm clubs had contrasting January transfer windows with Celtic able to preserve and strengthen their squad while Rangers sold top scorer Nikica Jelavic to Everton without signing a replacement.
Celtic lead reigning champions Rangers by four points in the Scottish Premier League and, unlike the Ibrox side, are still in both domestic cup competitions.
“Our aspirations and horizons are to dominate in Scotland but also beyond that; we want to compete at the highest level again in Europe,” said Lawwell.
“We have a stand-alone strategy, a stand-alone financial plan and a robustness hopefully that will take us through that.
“Times are pretty tough. I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to talk about any individual club, these things are hypothetical at the moment.
“I think we’ve a view, a very strong view on certain circumstances but we’ll only share that at the right time.
“In terms of Scottish football, I’m disappointed to look at the performance of Scottish teams in Europe and the effect that that has on co-efficient.
“I’m disappointed to see that financial constraints and problems in other nations as well.”
Earlier in the season, Celtic trailed in the league by 15 points and manager Neil Lennon alluded to a need for him to win the title in order to keep his job.
But Lawwell said: “That has never been said to Neil. We are absolutely delighted how he is performing, how he is developing as a football manager and as a man.
Celtic players celebrating
Celtic are four points clear at the top of the SPL
“I really, really enjoy working with him. He’s intelligent, he’s not only interested in the football side of the business but he’s interested in our strategy and other aspects of the business.
“He buys into what we’re doing here in terms of identifying players. He buys into the youth development side and I don’t there’ll be anyone else more suited to giving our youngsters a chance than Neil Lennon.
“We have built up a very strong squad. We’ve built up value in that squad. We’ve been able to keep our best players and at the same time, we’re performing on the field at the moment.
“We did embark on a strategy four or five years ago where we redirected investment into our recruitment, into our academy, into our facilities building Lennoxtown.
“It’s very, very early days but we’re beginning to see some green shoots of productivity from that in the players that we’ve identified and the kids that are beginning to come through.
“We haven’t won anything yet. Clearly, that is everyone’s priority at the club; to go and win the title and hopefully maybe add a couple of other trophies.
“But it’s still early. We are ahead but no-one’s taking anything for granted.”
Off the park, Celtic have been sanctioned by Uefa for the conduct of supporters and Lawwell added: “It’s a very small minority within our support, a genuine small minority that have infiltrated the Celtic support.
“What we can do is identify those, which we’re continually doing and take the appropriate action, which we are also doing.
“I don’t see it as a major issue for Celtic. This very small minority we will identify and make sure that they don’t come back to Celtic games.”
Rangers administration: ogilvie out of ibrox probe
Scotland on Sunday
By Tom English
Published on Sunday 4 March 2012 05:16
STEWART Regan, chief executive of the SFA, has confirmed that Campbell Ogilvie, the president of the association, will play no active part in their investigation into alleged secret, untaxed payments by way of reputed hidden contracts at Rangers going back a decade and more.
Ogilvie was the Ibrox secretary throughout the period in question and though he sits on the board at Hampden and would normally be involved in all such business, he will be excluded when the SFA begins their examination.
“Campbell won’t play any part in any meeting, discussion or conclusion on any activities surrounding Rangers,” said Regan on Friday. “I think it’s pretty obvious that he’s heavily conflicted. We’ve been aware of the issue for a while. We’ve been aware that people have views and believe that pieces of evidence exist. What we’re trying to do at the moment is get hold of as much information as we can.
“The board will meet to discuss it within a week or maybe slightly longer. Very, very quickly the board will get together to consider the facts. This will be the Scottish FA’s main board. There are seven people on the board, but if you exclude Campbell it’s six. He’s not going to be able to take part.”
On Friday, former Ibrox director Hugh Adam claimed that secret payments were being made to Rangers players as far back as the mid-1990s. Employee benefit trusts (EBTs) were believed to have come into vogue at Ibrox in 2001 but Adam suggests they might have been in operation even earlier than that, a fact that has exercised the SFA and will, no doubt, have Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs looking on with interest at the outcome of the association’s investigation. HMRC have already fought an epic battle with Rangers over their use of EBTs, the findings of which are imminent. If the verdict goes against the club, they could be looking at a tax bill of around £49m.
It has been rumoured for some time that many Rangers players in the years from 2001 to 2010 operated with two contracts, one declared to the tax man and to the SFA and the other held privately. If Adam is right – and a tabloid newspaper claimed last week to have seen one of these redacted contracts – then the ramifications for Rangers could be immense. Secret contracts are in direct contravention of the SFA articles of association and would have rendered all players holding such a contract ineligible to play for their club.
“Without having any specialist knowledge, I’m pretty sure [that EBTs were being used in the mid-1990s],” Adam told the Daily Mail. “There was a lot of that going on at the time. You knew it was cheating but some of them (his fellow directors) not only hoped, but believed, it was above board… They were doing things they shouldn’t have been doing… They were getting away with it but nobody thought they’d get away with it for ever… You could dodge your taxes that way.”
Adam, now 86, was removed from the Rangers board by Sir David Murray in 2002. Adam was a vocal critic of Murray’s financial stewardship of the club and was forced out after a 30-year association with Rangers. Since speaking out on Friday, Adam has been criticised on supporters’ websites. He has been accused of merely having an axe to grind with Murray while his recollection of events has also been called into question given that it is believed that EBTs only came into force at Ibrox in 2001, not years earlier as he seems to suggest.
Sources said last night that the EBTs were not Ogilvie’s domain at Rangers and that they were handled instead by the Murray Group. Indeed, it is at Murray’s door that Adam lays the responsibility for whatever fallout comes from the club’s use of the controversial trusts.
The SFA have taken Adam’s words extremely seriously. “It is one director’s take on things but as a board we have to examine it,” said Regan. Asked what the possible punishment might be if Rangers were found to be in breach of the regulations, the chief executive said it could be anything from Armageddon to a slap on the wrist. “If you look at our articles of association it shows a range of powers that the judicial panel has. What will happen is that the matter will go to the Scottish FA main board and will then pass through to the judicial panel. There’s a whole range of things from suspension and termination of membership at the extreme end to fines and ejection from Scottish Cup competition or other such penalties the panel deem appropriate.”
Regan did not rule out a more wide-ranging inquiry into the alleged double contracts saga. “That will depend on the board’s view of the facts and what information is there. The situation is changing daily and new information is emerging all the time. We’ve got our hands on certain pieces of information and we’re exploring it and we’re asking for further information. By the time the board meets we will have a fuller picture and if it’s the board’s opinion that they want a fuller investigation then that will be an option. If they feel they have enough facts to draw some conclusions then that will be their decision.”
In the next week or so, the SFA’s independent inquiry into Craig Whyte’s takeover of the club, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, is due to report its findings. “The terms of reference cover primarily the Craig Whyte era but in digging into facts it has taken us into other areas, so it’s thrown up matters which are of interest to the committee. I’m there representing the board. We’ve got into the meat of what has been going on at Rangers now and the inquiry has gone in different directions, so I can’t really comment on any particular area of it. We call witnesses and speak to people. That’s what the inquiry has been doing. I’m not prepared to discuss who we’ve spoken to. People we think have got information that will be useful to the inquiry.
“The inquiry isn’t judge and jury. The process is one of investigation and presenting the facts. The board will consider the facts and if the board feels that the facts are compelling they will pass that to the compliance officer and it will go through the normal disciplinary process.”
Asked about the perception that the SFA will not impose the maximum penalty on Rangers – termination of membership – even if they are found to be in serious contravention of their articles of association, Regan said: “You’re asking me to make comment before the inquiry is concluded. That’s inappropriate.”
When contacted last week, UEFA declined to comment on the happenings at Ibrox. “If you think about it,” said Regan, “would FIFA get involved in a UEFA matter before the actual body itself had been allowed to conclude their investigation? You have got to let the governing body go through the facts and establish conclusions. UEFA don’t run Scottish football, they run European football. They’ll only get involved here if they feel that something has happened that hasn’t been addressed and it impacts on their competitions. The new UEFA licence will be considered on or around 31 March and at that stage the matter will clearly be of interest to them. They are aware of what is going on at the club, though.”
“Duff & Phelps, the Administrators of Rangers Football Club, today issued the following statement.
7 March 2012
David Whitehouse, Joint Administrator, said: “We are announcing today we are accelerating the sale of Rangers Football Club.
“The Club is in a perilous financial situation and that should not be under-estimated. Regrettably, we have been unable to agree cost-cutting measures with the playing staff on terms that will preserve value in the business. We understand the players’ position as the scale of wage cuts required to achieve these savings without job losses were very substantial indeed.
“In view of this, we are faced with a situation of making redundancies within the playing staff on such a scale that would materially erode the value of the playing squad. We are striving to strike a balance where cost-cutting measures can be implemented but do not destroy the fabric of the playing squad to the extent that it will inhibit the prospect of a sale.
“However, no one should be in any doubt that in the absence of sufficient cost-cutting measures or receipt of substantial unplanned income, the Club will not be able to fulfil its fixtures throughout the remainder of the season.
“As a result, we are expediting the sale process and over the next few days we will be holding discussions with prospective purchasers who have declared their interest. The Manager, Ally McCoist will play an integral part in thesediscussions.
“If however it becomes apparent that the sale process cannot be accelerated there will be no choice but to implement very severe cost cutting measures at the Club.””
SFA accuse Channel 4 News correspondent of “lying” while protecting president Ogilvie
Posted on 13 March, 2012 by Paul67
Celtic Quick News
When you have a potential loss to the tax payer of £75m, allegations of tax irregularities, political interference, alleged sporting malfeasance and stand of the brink of the largest corporate failure in Scottish history (discounting the bailed-out RBS) the profile of the story rises above the blogs and regular Scottish media.
Alex Thomson, chief correspondent for Channel 4 News, a man who reports from war zones, interviews prime ministers and presidents, decided to look into how the SFA were handling the current crisis in Scottish football. Yesterday he blogged on the subject, raising many of the questions we have asked in recent months.
On Twitter this morning he reported his experience in trying to get some sense out of the SFA, this is what he said:
“SFA say President Campbell Ogilvie is ‘distancing himself from the current Rangers investigation’ but did not explain how.
“Campbell Ogilvie ‘did not know’ about EBT contract when he was Rangers FC secretary?
“When we asked why not – that was his job – SFA said they didn’t know.
“SFA say their President and fmr Ranger secretary Campbell Ogilvie will not be interviewed by c4news about what he knew…
“SFA say their President Campbell Ogilvie ‘has no plans to stand aside from his job pending current Rangers probes…
“Interesting SFA have just accused me of ‘lying’, ‘pig-headedness’ and then put the phone down mid-conversation….
“all because I put their own statement back to them that Campbell Ogilvie denied knowing about EBTs at Rangers…
“And suggested there might be a perceived conflict of interest in his current position until the investigations are complete”
Three weeks ago we suggested that Ogilvie’s position as SFA president was untenable, saying “The association cannot have a president embroiled in a tax evasion scam which, even before a verdict has been decided, has already caused untold harm to his former club and the reputation Scottish football.”
The SFA have been able to dismiss pleas for sporting integrity and ethical standards from the blogsphere while the mainstream media have either chased the hapless fall-guy, Craig Whyte, or refused to take the Improper Registration of Rangers players seriously.
SFA chief executive, Stewart Regan, was flushed out his slumber by Mr Thomson’s comments this morning, Tweeting to the reporter, “Please could you confirm who you have spoken to. thank you.”
Stewart, if you really need to ask that question, you’re in more trouble than I thought. There are several thousand CQN’ers who could help answer that one.
Campbell Ogilvie and the SFA cannot hide from the facts of this crisis. He is president of the SFA and both he and the association must acknowledge there is work to do. We can only hope Uefa finally decide to take a look.
This entry was posted in articles by Paul67. Bookmark the permalink.
Elaboration on the Murray interview yesterday.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/03/14/rangers-in-crisis-sir-david-murray-apologises-for-being-duped-into-selling-ibrox-club-to-craig-whyte-86908-23787424/
He speaks about CW spending money after he paid the loan back… What loan? I thought he didnt know about Ticketus :ponder:
DAVID MURRAY yesterday said sorry and admitted he was “duped” into selling Rangers.
The former owner is the latest in an ever-growing list of businessmen who claim they have been Whytewashed by the man who dragged Rangers into administration.
And Murray also conceded his reputation as Rangers owner and chairman has now been tarnished but one of his main sorrows, he insisted, was the sale of the club’s Arsenal shares.
A 23-year reign ended on May 6 last year when he stepped aside for Craig Whyte. Murray said: “I accept my responsibility in handing over to Craig Whyte and I deeply regret what has transpired.”
The former owner was speaking for the first time since the Ibrox club lurched into administration and he stressed that all the legal documents seemed to be in order.
But Record Sport revealed Whyte had used money raised through a season-ticket deal with Ticketus to buy Rangers. The London firm gave him £24million – even though he said he was using his own money.
Murray said: “I was duped, my advisers were duped, the bank was duped, shareholders were duped.
“We’ve all been duped. Is duped the right word? Yes, duped is the right word.”
Murray produced the legal letters of assurances supporting the deal and they included £9.5m for players and stadium work and £5m cashflow or working capital.
Asked why he hadn’t found out more about Whyte – such as why he’d been disqualified as a company director – Murray said: “After someone has been disqualified for seven years it’s not that easy to check. It’s also down to the individual, is it not, to make us aware of it. So we did check, to the best of our ability.
“But I was in a situation where we had been endeavouring to sell the club for four years. We had received proof of funds.
“We had a legal document confirming he was going to spend money on players, eventually, once he had paid back the loan.
“I thought, ‘I hope I’ve done the job right’. I’ve passed it on. This is a guy saying he’s going to spend money on players, on health and safety, do the ground up. That is a legal offer document. You would expect that to be honoured.
“He was Scottish, supposedly a Rangers fan, seemingly had the money and was very affable even if his reputation was vague.
“He and his lawyers met the criteria we laid down in the offer document.
“My Rangers reputation has been tarnished and I accept, as I was captain of the ship, I must take my share of the blame.
“Craig Whyte was the wrong person and it was a big mistake. I apologise again.”
Murray revealed he has spoken a couple of potential bidders and will help if he can. He added: “It’s important the club survives, not just for Rangers supporters but for Scottish football as a whole.”
DAVID MURRAY – MY MISTAKE.
Sporting Life Football on Twitter!
14 Mar 2012
Sir David Murray has admitted making a “huge mistake” in selling Rangers, saying: “I wish I’d never done the deal with Craig Whyte.”
Murray insists he was “duped” by the Motherwell-born businessman before he handed over his majority shareholding to him for £1 last May.
Since then the club has collapsed in chaos. Rangers entered administration on February 14 after HMRC lodged its petition over non-payment of about £9million in PAYE and VAT following Whyte’s takeover.
Whyte, previously disqualified as a company director for seven years, admitted selling tranches of future season tickets to the London investment firm Ticketus for £24.4million to effectively finance his takeover, using the money to wipe off Rangers’ £18million bank debt to Lloyds Banking Group.
Last Friday administrators Duff and Phelps confirmed management and players had agreed a wage-reduction deal ranging from 75% to 25% to secure jobs throughout the club, which needs to save £1million per month to stave off the threat of liquidation while new owners are sought.
At a press conference at his Edinburgh offices on Tuesday afternoon the former Rangers owner distributed a letter from Whyte’s solicitors, Collyer Bristow, dated January 3, assuring Murray that obligations were being met by Whyte, who last week was found by the Scottish Football Association not to be “a fit and proper person” to run a football club.
The letter was signed by Gary Withey, who has since quit as a partner at the firm.
Whyte’s pledges included paying off the bank debt and investing money in the squad and stadium but joint-administrator Paul Clark said at the weekend that they could see “no evidence of any investment by Whyte into Rangers”.
“I was primarily duped,” said Murray. “My advisers were duped, the bank was duped, the shareholders were duped. We’ve all been duped.”
Asked why he thought Whyte was the right man to take the club forward, after previously saying he would only sell to someone with Rangers’ best interests at heart, Murray replied: “Because he met the criteria that were in his offer document. He’s quite affable and plausible.
“I always remember someone said, ‘Does it pass the sniff test?’
“He was Scottish, he wasn’t a foreigner, he was supposedly a Rangers supporter, he had the money.
“There is a Stock Exchange offer document there. If you can’t believe that, what can you do?
“Craig Whyte made a statement that the club was never in better financial state when he took it over.
“This is a guy saying he’s going to spend money on players, on health and safety, do the ground up. That is a legal offer document. You would expect that to be honoured.
“The letter on January 3 is quite dynamite, because what they’ve done is confirm that they would deliver the deal they signed up to.”
Murray insists he had no idea that Whyte had used Ticketus money to buy the club.
“The first I knew about Ticketus was when Martin Bain (former chief executive) asked me to do a precognition on his defence (in a legal case) against Craig Whyte, and it was brought to my attention at the end of December,” he said.
“I signed a precognition in January with our lawyers present.
“But if we’d known of the Ticketus thing, we’d not have done the deal.”
Murray was at a loss as to how Whyte was able to raise money from Ticketus before he bought the Ibrox club.
“That’s a good question,” he said. “People can be puzzled. But genuinely, none of us knew.”
Murray was then asked if alarm bells did not ring when former chairman Alistair Johnston and former director Paul Murray warned that the deal with Whyte was not the right one for the club.
Paul Murray failed in his bid to buy Rangers before Whyte took over but now heads the Blue Knights consortium who have expressed their interest in rescuing the club from the threat of liquidation.
“We did check, to the best of our ability,” he said.
“After someone has been disqualified for seven years, it’s not that easy to check.
“And it is also down to the individual, is it not, to make us aware of that?
“I’m not defending me – because I’ve made a huge mistake here.
“And I deeply regret, I deeply regret, selling the club to Craig Whyte now. Deeply.
“And if the information had been available to me at the time I wouldn’t have done it. I did it in good faith.”
The steel magnate, who lost both legs in a road accident, tried to put his disappointment about the way things have happened at Rangers into some context.
“It’s ironic you should meet me today: it’s 36 years today since I had my accident, March 13,” he said.
“I’m not trying to be some tough or arrogant person, but I’ve had quite a few obstacles put in my life. And I would say that I’m very disappointed.
“Again, I can only apologise how this has turned out. And if I could turn the clock back, of course I would. There’s not much more I can say than that.”
Murray, who took over Rangers in 1988, admits the state the club finds itself in has tarnished his legacy.
“Of course it has,” he said. “It’s 22, 23 years, and I think the first 15 or 16 were fantastic.
“Then we went into a tight period financially when I put a lot of money into the club.
“I have genuinely put just short of £100million into Rangers in my tenure.
“We all enjoyed a lot of success together. Now all of a sudden it’s all my fault.
“I accept at the end of the day I was the captain of the ship, and I take my share of criticism.”
Collyer and Bristow refused to comment. Whyte was unavailable for comment.
Regrets and an apology as Sir David speaks out
Darrell King
Wednesday 14 March 2012
SIR David Murray has fought many battles in his life.
Yesterday was the painful reminder of the biggest and toughest of all, the 36th anniversary of the horrific car accident that left him without the use of his legs.
It was also the day the 60 year-old millionaire businessman broke cover to fight for his own credibility in the wake of Craig Whyte’s shambolic purchase of Rangers that has left the football club in administration and clinging on to its very existence.
In his plush office in Edinburgh’s Charlotte Square, there was no attempt to sugar-coat the situation as Sir David spoke for the first time about why he sold to the shamed Whyte. There was an instant apology, genuine regret and a hope that Rangers can survive.
As he surveys the wreckage of a club he owned and ran for 23 years – at times recklessly – Sir David insisted he did everything he could to carry out background checks on Whyte, who bought the club from him for £1 last May before embarking on a nine-month period of stewardship that has taken the SPL champions to the brink.
Sir David produced damning documentation on Whyte as his trusted lieutenant, Murray Group finance director Mike McGill, clearly and concisely outlined his boss’s part in proceedings.
Letters received from Whyte’s London-based lawyer Gary Withey, of Collyer Bristow – one unsigned and dated October 11, 2011, and an identical copy signed and dated on January 3, 2012 – insist Whyte and his team had lived up to the terms of the takeover.
The letters insist £7.8 million, pledged in the official Share Purchase Agreement outlining how Whyte would buy Rangers, remained in Whyte’s Collyer Bristow client account. But last week Rangers’ administrators Duff & Phelps seized just £3.6m from that very account, leaving £4.2m unaccounted for.
Sir David told The Herald: “The letter on January 3 is quite dynamite because what they’ve done is confirm they would deliver the deal they signed up to. That has never been in the public domain.
“As early as August, there was a sort of ‘wait a minute, this doesn’t seem to be quite right’ from us. You’ve now got that for the first time. It does not look good for Craig Whyte at all.”
Sir David was asked why he sold Rangers to Whyte. He said: “It’s ironic you should meet me today. It’s 36 years today since I had my accident, March 13.
“I’m not trying to be some tough or arrogant person, but I’ve had quite a few obstacles put in my life. I have a responsibility to accept that I sold the club to the wrong person.
“If I could turn the clock back, of course I would. There’s not much more I can say than that.
“I deeply regret selling the club to Craig Whyte. And if the information had been available to me at the time I wouldn’t have done it. I did it in good faith.
“There’s only so much information. After someone has been disqualified for seven years (as a director), it’s not that easy to check. And it is also down to the individual, is it not, to make us aware of that?
“So we did check, to the best of our ability. But I was in a situation where we had been endeavouring to sell the club for four years. We had received proof of funds. We had a legal document confirming he was going to spend money on players, eventually, once he had paid back the loan.”
Sir David added: “I’m not defending myself because I’ve made a huge mistake here. He met the criteria that were in his offer document. What we wanted to do was get debt out the club.
“I thought: ‘I hope I’ve done the job right. I’ve passed it on. This is a guy saying he’s going to spend money on players, on health and safety, do the ground up. That is a legal offer document. You would expect that to be honoured.”
Two major questions have gnawed at everyone since Whyte’s short-term reign began to unravel, culminating in the club going into administration on February 14.
Firstly, just how did he manage to mortgage off more than 100,000 advance season ticket sales, raising a sum of £24.4m, of which £18m was used to repay the club’s debt to Lloyds Bank, a full month before he completed the takeover of Rangers on May 6?
Whyte’s entire transaction remains at the centre of a police investigation. So far, nothing has been decided as to whether any wrongdoing took place.
There has been an allegation made already that “financial assistance” may have taken place. That is when a company’s assets are used to buy that company over, which is against the law.
Sir David said of the season ticket deal: “The first I knew about Ticketus was when Martin Bain (Rangers’ former chief executive) asked me to do a precognition on his defence against Craig Whyte, and it was brought to my attention at the end of December.
“I signed a precognition in January with our lawyers, Gateleys, and Levy McRae (Bain’s lawyers) present, and that is there to go into the court.
“We had never heard of Ticketus before (that is, Ticketus involvement in the Whyte deal as the club had used them previously for short-term finance deals), and for people to think we knew earlier – there was nothing at all. How did he do it? That’s a good question.”
The second major question concerns Lloyds Bank. It had been running Rangers with an iron fist for almost three years. Debt had been driven down to the £18m mark from £35m.
With a potential tax liability centred on Rangers’ use of Employment Benefit Trusts, was it not the case the bank was desperate to get Rangers off its books? Sir David insisted the bank did not pressure him into doing a deal with Whyte.
“No,” the former owner said. “The bank wanted their money back, of course, and I’d made it clear I wanted out of Rangers. We were going into recession and people weren’t queueing up to buy football clubs.
“Lloyds wanted out the football industry. I wanted out the football industry. But if we’d known of the Ticketus thing, we’d not have done the deal.”
Sir David said he has spoken to Whyte a few times since the chaos began to ensue. He also revealed Whyte had rejected advice on how to approach life as Rangers’ owner.
He said: “The day I met him, he asked me for advice. I said do not become chairman for a year and ensure you keep Martin Bain on to see if you can work together. You’ll need him. And for his own reasons he decided to dismiss Martin.
“The day of administration I phoned him at 8.30am. I got a text saying ‘I’m busy, I’ll phone you later’. And I’ve not heard anything.”
Centre stage at question time
Published on 14 March 2012
Darrell King
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO HUGH ADAM’S CLAIMS ABOUT TWO CONTRACTS BEING ISSUED TO PLAYERS AS FAR BACK AS THE 1990S AND ALSO IN THE EBT SCHEME?
Sir David Murray: Hugh Adam didn’t know. Hugh Adam wanted to buy Rangers at the time I had the club. He was important, and did a great job in running the pools. He became a bit anti-me. I think even in the press Laudrup and Albertz confirmed it. I’ve asked the auditors to go through it. I’ve looked through every year to check my facts. There was no double contract. There was categorically no dual contracts.
Mike McGill (Murray Group finance director): Mr Adam I think resigned as a director in September 2000. The club used an old offshore EBT scheme in 1999 with three players (two of which were believed to be Ronald de Boer and Tore Andre Flo). That scheme is the subject of the small tax case. The Revenue provided some information to us in early 2011 and we conceded [the £2.8m] based on that information and provided for payment in the club accounts. Craig Whyte didn’t pay it (the bill has now risen to £4.1m due to penalties incurred through Whyte’s non-payment). The other EBT scheme was started in 2001. The larger scheme involves a payment into an offshore trust, but there is no contractual entitlement on the part of the players. That is key to the defence, and key to the allegations made by the SFA.
SO TWO CONTRACTS WERE NEVER APPLIED TO EBTS?
McGill: The whole basis of an EBT arrangement is that there is not a contractual entitlement.
Murray: The government stopped EBTs two years ago (9 Dec 2010). There are 5000 companies and 50,000 people in EBTs, and football clubs became quite focal.”
BUT WOULD YOU CONCEDE THEY LOOK LIKE DOUBLE CONTRACTS?
Murray: No. I think we’ve explained that.
DOES YOUR VIEW REMAIN THAT YOU CAN STILL GET A FAVOURABLE OUTCOME?
Murray: We’re confident that we have a strong case, I think that’s been well documented.
DO YOU REGRET THE USE OF EBTS?
Murray: I’m not going to comment on that just now. We’ve probably said more than we should have said on EBTs. The tribunal judges are about to make a decision and I do not want to be seen to be influencing either way. What I would say is this. We went through 10 agms. We signed off accounts by Grant Thornton, the remuneration trust was always mentioned in the account, it was never hidden. And that’s a fact.
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DEBATE ABOUT THE IMPACT ON SCOTTISH FOOTBALL SHOULD RANGERS IN ITS CURRENT FORM BE LOST TO THE GAME. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
Murray: I don’t think Scottish football at this moment is seen as a great investment. If you’re not a Rangers fan you want to kick Rangers, and I understand that. That’s just the way Scottish life is concerned. I’ll just give you some facts: what you’d lose if Rangers go. People say Rangers tried to avoid tax. We’ve not done anything [of the sort] in my opinion at all. If you take Rangers’ turnover of £50m a year, and we’re paying £18m wage bill with PAYE – which unfortunately Mr Whyte has not paid. But if you take any normal circumstance, in a normal, typical year with limited European football, Rangers would probably pay to HMRC £20m. And if you take 40,000 people watching Rangers every week. Let’s say 10,000 go and watch St Mirren, Partick Thistle, Falkirk and Kilmarnock, there’s 30,000 people who won’t be in the industry.
On top of that, the Fraser of Allander Institute have given a report that says Rangers and Celtic bring £100m a year into the economy. If Rangers are not there, I don’t think Celtic means £50m, because part of that comes through the Old Firm. Whether you like it or not, that’s just a fact of life.
So I would hope, whatever the outcome of the tax case, there is quite a major financial consequence to the Exchequer here. And I think that should be taken into consideration. Also I think it makes the game less competitive. I don’t think the TV deal would be honoured. I think it would affect other clubs. Then on top of that there’s the hidden amount of money people spend going to games. So if you’re not a Rangers fan it’s understandable. But I don’t think it would help whatever other club they support in the long term.”
DO YOU FEEL THAT RECENT EVENTS AT THE CLUB HAVE TARNISHED YOUR LEGACY?
Murray: Of course it has. It’s 22, 23 years, and I think the first 15 or 16 were fantastic. Then we went into a tight period financially when I put a lot of money into the club. I have genuinely put just short of £100m into Rangers in my tenure. Then you’ve got Dave King’s and Joe Lewis’s investments. We all enjoyed a lot of success together. Now all of a sudden it’s all my fault. There was a rights issue where I put £50m in. I accept at the end of the day I was the captain of the ship, and I take my share of criticism.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO FOR THE CLUB RIGHT NOW?
Murray: If required, I would, of course. If I was able to help in some small way. We did have a lot of good times together at the club. It’s a Scottish trait, isn’t it? ‘It wasnae me and blame everybody else’. But I employ 3500 people in Scotland. The best thing that has happened to me business-wise is not having Rangers, as I’ve managed to concentrate on my business again and it’s going well.
HOW DID YOU FEEL WHEN CRAIG WHYTE SOLD THE ARSENAL SHARES THAT THE CLUB HAD GIFTED TO THEM IN THE EARLY 1900S
Murray: I said to Mike [McGill], does he realise what he’s done? That was a raw nerve, that one, to have done that premeditated. Any sympathy he may have had just went out the window then.
EXCLUSIVE: You’re wrong! Adam hits out at Sir David’s EBTs defence
Daily Mail
By John Mcgarry
PUBLISHED: 22:49, 14 March 2012 | UPDATED: 00:07, 15 March 2012
Hugh Adam has railed against Sir David Murray’s defence of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs), claiming they were simply part of the Ibrox stars’ salaries.
Murray broke his silence on Tuesday to confirm the two main allegations Adam made in Sportsmail last month.
The man who created Rangers Pools claimed EBTs had been used in the 1990s and that they had been excluded from player contracts registered with the SFA and SPL.
If true, the second allegation would be in direct contravention of both bodies’ rules on player registration, which demand full disclosure of all remuneration.
Having seen both bodies launch investigations in the past week, Murray defended the use of EBTs by insisting there was no obligation to detail them in contracts as there was ‘no contractual entitlement on the part of the players’.
Adam, however, responded by insisting that, far from being discretionary, the money paid via EBTs was, in effect, wages.
‘It was effectively salary and should have been included in the players’ wage slips,’ he said. ‘It was a way of attracting players into the club. I think he (Murray) was aware that if he did that, the players would be quite happy and would stay with Rangers. If someone can give you an extra twenty grand a year that you don’t have to account for, then you’d jump at it.
‘I don’t see how you can have that kind of contract and just take a bit out of it as you go along.
‘If you were trying to attract players, you had to get money from all sources. He probably wouldn’t have been paying them enough in the ordinary way.’
Although Murray has denied the existence of a ‘second contract’ containing EBT payments, employment lawyers who examined a ‘back letter’ given to an unnamed player detailing bonuses believed it to be a de facto contract.
Adam maintains that whatever shape it is in, there exist written agreements detailing remuneration which were not lodged with the authorities.
‘I always said there were separate contracts. I said that quite deliberately,’ he added. ‘If there hadn’t been, they would have been in the main books. It wasn’t included in the standard contract. That’s a certainty.’
On the day that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie admitted having an EBT, but stressed that since the mid-1990s he’d had no part in administrating contracts, Adam concurred, saying: ‘Campbell would only have been a nominal general secretary. David (Murray) was secretive and kept these things to himself.’
Michael Kelly: Helping Rangers would be sporting thing to do
The Scotsman
Published on Thursday 15 March 2012 00:00
While the giants of Scottish football are rivals, Celtic should not seek to punish the other half of the Old Firm too heavily, writes Michael Kelly
David Murray’s statement apologising for selling Rangers to someone on whom he failed to do sufficient due diligence reveals more about his approach to the problems Rangers were causing him than it does about his judgment. In the latter years of his ownership, the club was in such trouble and imposing such a burden on him that he was desperate to pass the buck so that he could concentrate on his core business which, he admitted yesterday, had recovered when once again it was his sole focus.
It was an issue of mindset and self-preservation that caused him to bale out so injudiciously. In many ways his judgment was spot on. He realised that the best thing for him financially was get out quick. He couldn’t get out quick – the club was for sale for three years – so he just got out. And just in time, because it is difficult to believe, given what we now know about the disastrous financial circumstances of the club, that administration was anything other than inevitable.
In terms of his image too, Murray’s judgment might have been right. He is suffering criticism now but condemnation would have been much more long term if the club had gone under while he was still the majority shareholder. This way he has got Craig Whyte as a scapegoat to chase before him into the desert of blame. It is just unfortunate for Murray that administration followed so quickly on his transfer of ownership. If Whyte had managed to get through even one season there might have been sufficient time elapsed for Murray to be able credibly to wash his hands of the affair. However, the fact that it did happen so fast suggests deep-seated problems that Whyte was unable to manage but certainly did not create.
It was good to hear Murray confirm that Campbell Ogilvie, one-time Rangers secretary and now SFA president, played no part in making any payments to players which Murray contended were unexceptional anyway. I have known Campbell for many years. Indeed, we used to laugh at the name RC Ogilvie at the bottom of Rangers tickets. “The only RC at Ibrox” was the joke which he shared. He is a man of principle as were most of the Rangers’ directors that I knew. It is uncomfortable for all of them that their actions may be scrutinised in the enquiries into Rangers that are promised by the SFA and others.
One subject for these investigations – should any ever take place – is whether any players’ payments were made that were contrary to the rules of football. If it is found that they were, the SFA and the Scottish Premier League will have to decide whether Rangers should be stripped of trophies won and, further, if those trophies should be awarded to the teams that finished second in the various competitions. It is against my whole view of sport that matters other than what happens on the field of play should count. But there is an obvious argument that financial cheats should be treated in the same way as athletics treats drug users. On balance then it would be right to strip Rangers of ill-gotten gains. But it might not be appropriate for other clubs to be awarded honours that they themselves didn’t actually win. For example, could Celtic in all conscience accept league titles that they threw away by Martin O’Neil’s overcautious approach at Fir Park in 2005 or the team’s failure to turn up at Inverness last season? You bet they could! Ben Johnson’s gold went to Carl Lewis. Celtic would grab these titles with both hands.
But while the rivalry on the field between Scotland’s biggest clubs has always been intense, away from the heat of games, relations have usually been warm, close and helpful. As we face this uncertain future for Scottish football one thing is sure, Celtic and Rangers must stick together. Already the other SPL clubs, scenting weakness, are banding together to plan ways in which to clip the Old Firm’s wings. Any adjustment in the way TV and other receipts are spread among the clubs must certainly improve the position of the ten. It might even lead to closer competition. But that competition would be fought at an even lower level than it is at present. European success is at the moment a distant dream. If Celtic and Rangers had even less money to spend on players they’d rarely get past the first qualifying round.
After the initial wave of pleasure at Rangers’ discomfiture most Celtic fans realise the necessity of restoring them to health. Those who still resist this notion are on the fringes. They are the ones who sing most passionately about Celtic’s history. Here is a piece of that history which they do not know but which might convince them that the club should extend a helping hand to their great rivals. Rangers were once before in financial difficulty. It was in the 1920’s when my grandfather, James Kelly (a former Scotland centre-half), was chairman of Celtic. Rangers had a temporary cash flow problem and their board came out to his house in Blantyre to explain the problem and seek help. Celtic gave them an unconditional short-term loan. The fact that Rangers felt able to ask and that Celtic willingly responded indicates that both clubs were aware of their inter-dependence. Murray sought to supplant that symbiosis – possibly because he never came to Rangers as a supporter. He would have been the first to boast that Rangers could prosper outwith the Old Firm.
But Celtic should ignore his track record and resist any collective punishment on Rangers and their fans over the mistakes of a few men. The club cannot offer Rangers any funding this time. But, it would be ludicrous to condemn any reconstituted Rangers to the third division just because that rule happened to be applied to Livingston. Change the rule. Equally, Rangers’ attempts to return to stability should not be hampered by the imposition of any financial penalties from the football authorities. Celtic, and indeed the rest of Scottish football, should make it as easy as possible for Rangers to save themselves.
It is the sporting thing to do.
Rangers in administration: It’s too late to send in the clowns…
It was a toss-up between Mr Custard and Sir David Murray for the best unintended laugh of the week.
Daily Telegraph
By Roddy Forsyth10:30PM GMT 15 Mar 2012
Lest you should have missed his involvement, Mr Custard – a children’s entertainer in Corby – has a website called Bluenose which was mistaken by Rangers supporters for the site to which they should send donations for the fans’ fighting fund.
If only Mr Custard had been on the scene last year when the club was up for sale!
At least the fans would have known what they were getting if the new chairman – sporting a bulbous blue nose, of course – had driven up to the front door at Ibrox in his collapsible car and sprayed water from his buttonhole on to the horde of photographers.
And, of course, Mr Custard has a website, more than you can say for Liberty Capital, the holding company for Craig Whyte’s innumerable businesses – which, according to the statement issued to the Stock Exchange by Rangers on the occasion of Whyte’s takeover, has “a billion pounds of assets under management”.
Online is a notice advising that “The Liberty Capital web site is currently under redevelopment” – the same notice displayed throughout the six months of due diligence that preceded Whyte’s taking control at Ibrox.
You might think that would have flagged a storm warning for Murray when combined with other simple checks that would have shown that the addresses for Whyte’s companies in Switzerland and Florida were a Portakabin in Geneva and a disused warehouse in Miami.
When, earlier this week, Murray decided to present a defence of his decision to sell Rangers to Whyte, his mention of Google prompted another spluttering guffaw from this correspondent.
“If anyone had typed ‘Craig Whyte’ into a Google search engine, there was only one article on him,” said Murray, who was particularly emphatic about the difficulty of tracing the seven-year ban on Whyte acting as a company director.
The ban aside, there was a trail of pointers to Whyte’s business history and methods. There are cuttings and archive services whose files are not accessible to Google because they are behind pay walls.
Take Nexis, for example. Its enticement to potential subscribers includes the promise that it is “Your indispensable monitoring tool for risk and reputation management”. Sound like something Murray could have used?
Nexis has “deep backfiles of newspapers from around the world” plus files from wire services and agencies in an archive stretching back 35 years. Clipserve and Factiva offer similar facilities.
So it was that, on the night of the takeover, my colleague, Ewing Grahame, could write of Whyte in these pages: “In 1993, aged 23, he acquired security company Vital UK and built it into a conglomerate before it went into voluntary liquidation, with debts of over £600,000, three years later.
“The tycoon appeared at the High Court in 1999, where his legal team admitted he owed £3.5 million to a single creditor … the government launched an investigation into his affairs and former employees pursued him through the courts for unpaid wages.
“Whyte’s business interests include a variety of complex offshore companies. He founded Liberty Capital, a group which claims to specialise in buying underperforming companies and transforming their fortunes before selling them on.
“However, quite how Mr Whyte has been able to persuade the Rangers directors that he has access to the funding required to effect a similar transformation for their club has yet to be explained.
“Many of the companies he has been associated with have either gone bust or are worth little. Consequently, the source, and extent, of Whyte’s wealth remains opaque.”
In the Murray version of events, peddled to a selected audience whichunsurprisingly did not include The Daily Telegraph, he sounded like a corporate version of Private Frazer from Dad’s Army, crying: “Duped! Duped! We’re all duped!”
But Rangers’ independent takeover board was not duped. Having had little access to the takeover proposal until less than three weeks before the act, the board issued a statement on April 19, 2011 that read: “Whilst the proposed transaction has addressed the interests of Lloyds Bank, the Murray Group and Craig Whyte, our perspective is solely directed towards the future of Rangers Football Club.
“Given the requirement to repay the bank in full under the proposed transaction, there appears to be only a relatively modest amount of money available that would positively impact the club’s operations.”
Alastair Johnston, Rangers’ chairman until the takeover, told me last night: “Craig Whyte’s display of funds was very weak but the Murray Group accepted.”
Perhaps there are none so duped as those that will not see – or those who do not look in the right places. Mr Custard would understand – but then, he is a conjurer whose art depends on the skills of distraction.
When Succulent Lamb is on The Menu – Serious Questions Are Off
Saturday 24 March 2012 1:35 pm
Alex Thomson
Channel 4 News
Right – let me make two things absolutely clear at the outset.
First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers.
Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment.
I’d expected the paranoia, insults, spin etc – hey – this is “fitba” after all and I welcome it good, bad and ugly, from fans within and without Glasgow. Indeed I’ve gone out and asked for it.
What I didn’t expect were the insults (and in at least one case a direct physical threat) not from fans but from Scottish journalists.
Sarajevo, Mogadishu, Kabul, Islamabad, Tripoli, Baghdad…I could bore you with more – in none of these places have I ever got this interesting reaction from local journalists.
Only in Glasgow.
So something’s up. Something’s different.
Something about asking questions about RFC clearly angers some in the Glasgow media in a way I’ve never seen in 25 years of global reporting.
Equally, a number of fine Glasgow journalists have been incredibly helpful, encouraging and agree there has been something deeply wrong for far too long in the culture of reporting RFC.
They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and every single one has encouraged me to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring.
I refer of course to “succulent lamb”. Graham Spiers, seasoned football writer in Glasgow was there the day it happened.
He and other reporters dined with Sir David Murray – then RFC owner, in the Channel Islands. Murray – as ever – was talking big on the Rangers dream-theme, laying out plans for the club that seemed to go well beyond the mere limit of the sky.
There duly appeared copy praising the “succulent lamb” that was eaten – the “fine red” that was drunk.
The food and drink were taken – so was this man’s dream of Rangers – all without much question in some quarters.
I make and imply no criticism at all of the reporters present – what intrigues as an outsider is how many people years later around Glasgow happily talk about “succulent lamb” journalism.
Let Graham explain – he was actually there, after all: “Succulent lamb journalism means a culture – and I hold my hand up here too – a culture of sycophantic, unquestioning, puff journalism that went on around Rangers generally and Sir David Murray particularly.”
Of course you’ll see it to some degree across sport, across football. But it was, many Glasgow journalists say, more damaging here.
“Look,” says Graham Spiers, “you are making a pact with the devil if you like. You get thrown the best scraps. You get something for the back page or whatever. But there’s a tacit deal. You don’t dig too deep. You don’t cause any trouble.”
So Big Dave’s dream was shouted across Glasgow. Fans loved it. It shifted papers. Everyone (in blue) wanted in, needed to believe.
So it went on – year after year. On one side the directors at Scotland’s football “governing” bodies didn’t ask much. On the other, large sections of Glasgow football journalism declined to delve.
How else to explain Ibrox’s boom to spectacular bust?
How else to deal with the fact that when Craig Whyte took over it was stories of a “billionaire” with “off the scale riches” that were pumped out?
Ten minutes on Google or in Companies House could’ve ended that. But no. It was dreamland the fans wanted, dreamland much of the media bought into and a club already financially crippled was about to be further injured.
Legions of fans sold out again, as it would turn out.
Succulent lamb culture has permeated to a degree that, as one prominent Glasgow tabloid journalist put it: “The press -a really critical check and balance in the normal way of things, had been more or less destroyed in Glasgow.”
So are things any better today? Is succulent lamb off the menu – replaced with humble pie?
I leave it to others to judge if that succulent lamb cozy Glasgow football culture has really gone away.
Day of reckoning draws nearer for Rangers. And it’s not looking good – by Michael Grant
The Herald
THE Rangers story has made its seemingly inevitable transition from Blue Knights to sleepless nights.
In recent weeks Rangers haven’t exactly experienced anything which could be called a sense of security but, justifiably or not, there has been a tentative optimism around the place. Players slashed their wages to protect jobs, bidders emerged who wanted to take over from Craig Whyte, a fighting fund raised precious dough, some minor bills were paid off, they had the enjoyment of beating Celtic and basking in the nostalgia of the lucrative legends game. After Black February, and the shame of slipping into administration, March allowed the club to feel that it was rallying to save itself.
But this is April. And now there is a sense that Rangers are in the eye of the storm, a period of relative calm before the next wave of potentially catastrophic developments. It is now only a matter of weeks, perhaps days, before a verdict from the first-tier tax tribunal, which could leave them with a bill for £24m in unpaid taxes, £12m or so in compound interest and perhaps the same again in penalties – £49m is the hypothetical sum which has been widely reported for more than a year, and if anything close to that is confirmed it will still seem as shocking as being struck by lightning.
That “big tax case” verdict is the game changer, the potentially apocalyptic outcome whichunderpins the entire Rangers story and has administrators Duff & Phelps talking about liquidation more readily now than they did when they arrived on the scene a month ago. It would not be true to say that they ever discounted liquidation, but in their initial briefings back in February there was a breezy confidence about not having to go down that route. That no longer applies. Perhaps they suppressed the likelihood of liquidation in the hope of making the club seem more attractive to bidders. Now the very real prospect of liquidation “needs to be put out there”, said Paul Clark.
Whyte used to be utterly dismissive of Rangers going into administration. And then it crept into his interviews, and then it was mentioned routinely, and eventually he plunged them into it. What’s giving Rangers supporters panic attacks at the moment is that the same could be happening with liquidation. It’s as though Duff & Phelps are trying to soften up their audience for the bad news which could be on its way. Some will try to interpret it optimistically, and claim that it will always be Rangers to them, even if the company itself is brand new, but that does nothing to change the fact liquidation would be a disgraceful end to the club in its current form. They are hugely vulnerable to that and not a single individual has held up his hands to take the slightest bit of blame for it.
Whyte has been emphatic about not being prepared to deal with Paul Murray, which gives the Blue Knights a huge headache. Club 9 Sports, the American bidders, are wide open to the idea of liquidating Rangers. The bid fronted in Singapore? How on earth can supporters trust a consortium which has told them absolutely nothing about who’s involved, their motivations, or how much money they intend to invest?
It’s pretty clear that the administrators haven’t been bowled over by any of the bids. If they haven’t been especially impressed by the amount of money on offer to pay off the debts – remember, Duff & Phelps’ primary responsibility is to the creditors – what does that say about how much cash any of the bidders will devote to future funding?
For Rangers, the picture is bleaker today than it was on the day they fell into administration.
There was a time when Ross County weren’t even a big deal in the Highland League. For those of us who first attended a game at Victoria Park in 1980 – when it had one ramshackle stand, one covered end and the rest was grass banking – the growth and transformation of this club has been truly remarkable. Even in Highland terms they used to be one of the also-rans, a wee club which won the league only three times in 65 years.
Going 28 league games in a row without defeat this season will be rewarded with promotion to the Clydesdale Bank Premier League and continue the ascent of Derek Adams. Under him, County won promotion to the Irn-Bru First Division in 2008 and in each season he has completed there (either side of being assistant manager at Hibs) they’ve finished higher in the table. And there was, of course, that amazing run to the 2010 Active Nation Scottish Cup final.
Adams’ team defeated Neil Lennon’s in the semi-final and now the pair must be locked in another contest. When it comes to the manager of the year awards both the Scottish Football Writers’ Association and the players’ union, PFA Scotland, will have voted before the William Hill Scottish Cup final on May 19, which means it may not be clear if Celtic’s season will yield one trophy or two. These early deadlines cause an annual problem, requiring decisions to be taken before the whole picture is visible.
If Celtic win a double then the manager of the year is Lennon. Otherwise County’s domination of the First Division has been the season’s outstanding achievement and Adams, still only 36, should get the recognition he deserves for it.
Rangers’ estimated debts could top £134m
BBC 5 April 2012 Last updated at 17:50
Rangers’ administrators estimate that the club’s total debts could top £134m.
The figure is revealed in an administrators’ report to creditors published on the club’s website.
A total of more than £93m is being claimed by HM Revenue and Customs, relating to the so-called big and small tax cases, and unpaid VAT and PAYE.
The report also reveals Rangers owe cash to other football clubs including Celtic, Hearts, Dundee United, Manchester City and Arsenal.
The full extent of the potential liabilities facing Rangers has been unclear since the Ibrox club went into administration in February.
Administrators Duff and Phelps, who have been tasked with rescuing the financially stricken club, have said they are considering three takeover bids out of the four that were submitted on Wednesday, and hope to accept one by next week.
The three bidders are understood to include former Rangers director Paul Murray’s Blue Knights consortium, along with bidders from Singapore and the US.
The creditors’ report reveals, however, that the club owes cash to 276 individuals, businesses and public bodies.
The largest estimated combined amount, more than £93m, is to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
Currently, the largest established unsecured creditor is private finance firm Ticketus, which is owed £26.7m.
Debenture owners – fans who loaned money to the club – are owed £7.7m
And taxpayer-funded bodies also owed money include: Strathclyde Police (£51,882), Scottish Ambulance Service (£8,438), Culture and Sport Glasgow (£10,338), Glasgow City Council (£7,000), Argyll and Bute Council (£406), and Edinburgh City Council (£90).
The report also reveals that Rangers owe more than £2.3m to 12 football clubs in Scotland, England and throughout Europe.
Playing staff
Domestically, Rangers owe: Hearts (£800,000), Dunfermline Athletic (£83,370), Dundee United (£65,981), Celtic (£40,337) and Inverness Caledonian Thistle (£39,805).
English clubs are also owed more than £700,000. This breaks down as: Manchester City (£328,248), Chelsea (£238,345) and Arsenal (£136,560).
European clubs are also owed more than £1.6m, including Rapid Vienna (£1,011,763), St Etienne (£252,212), Palermo (£205,513) and Orebro (£150,000).
The report reveals that since Rangers went into administration – some six weeks ago – the club has lost more than £2.5m.
The £134m potential debt figure revealed in the Duff and Phelps report does not include liabilities to employees, including the playing staff whose contracts revert to their original terms on 1 June.
If these playing staff contracts are to be honoured, the potential £134m liability will rise by a further significant amount.
BBC Scotland football reporter Alasdair Lamont said the potential debt would be a lot for any buyer of the club to take on.
But he added: “These figures will have been known to all the parties who have indicated any interest at all in taking over Rangers.
“None of these figures are surprising, it is just when you add them all together it seems incredibly large, and probably why in recent days this idea of liquidation has become more and more of a possibility you would have to say.
“The administrators are making the point today (Thursday) that having got four bids in yesterday they are more confident again they will be able to come out of administration through a CVA and avoid this liquidation.”
Rangers: How come nobody saw this coming
Thursday 5 April 2012 10:35 am
Alex Thomson, Channel 4
After the markets crashed and RBS imploded, the Queen found herself on a tour of the City of London quite recently. Surrounded by suits and flunkeys she suddenly paused and asked:
“How come nobody saw this coming?”
05 Rangers g blog Rangers: how come nobody saw this coming?
She’s not been to Ibrox recently, but the same question hangs heavy. How come nobody saw Sir David Murray’s Rangers empire was crumbling?
How come nobody at the club , the SFA , the SPL questioned whether Craig Whyte really was the man to buy RFC?
Because – like the bankers – everyone was having too much fun living the dream? Partly yes, but partly a crucial check and balance to all the Ibrox hype had all but gone.
For years too much football ‘journalism’ in Glasgow had been too lazy, sycophantic and incapable of asking awkward questions.
Some notable exceptions of course – but the dismal rule stands out thereby. And it’s not clear things are getting all that much better even when faced with the massive corporate car-crash which is Rangers today.
The culture of taking wild stories at face value and pumping them out appears alive and well in Glasgow – the record will show the MSM in that city have been left standing time and time again by bloggers getting the facts in their spare time often many miles from Glasgow.
Media studies PhD anyone? Tis fertile ground.
Liquidation of Rangers would wash 140 years of proud tradition away
RANGERS going into liquidation is unthinkable. It’s as simple as that. And that’s why I was so worried when I saw that dreaded word rear its ugly head again yesterday. It looks as though Craig Whyte doesn’t want to sell his shares to Paul Murray and the Blue Knights consortium. There has even been a suggestion he would rather let the club die. Hasn’t he done enough damage already? If Whyte refuses point blank to sell his shares to Paul then liquidation becomes a genuine fear for the fans again.
For me, it has always been the worst-case scenario since administration engulfed Ibrox. I’m speaking as a fan and former Rangers player – it can’t be allowed to happen. Think of the history that would be lost if the club went bust. That’s the thing that disturbs me most. Rangers have a phenomenal 140-year tradition, with some great players and managers along the way. There have been brilliant times and different generations of supporters can say: “I supported that team.” The same as their grandad and great-grandad did. But that would be broken if liquidation became a reality. People have so much passion for Rangers and it’s a club known around the world. It’s important those traditions and values are maintained. I’ve heard punters say: “Even if they’re liquidated, they’ll come back with a new name and the history will still be there.” But I don’t agree – it just won’t be the same Rangers. A club should be the same from birth. It allows you to keep the same values that Rangers were founded upon. The Rangers supporters would also never be allowed to forget it by Celtic fans. So I don’t even want to think about that particular scenario. It would be another black mark against the Whyte regime. The best thing for him to do now, in the best interests of Rangers, would be sell to someone with the club at heart. At the moment, that person is Paul and the Blue Knights. The most important thing is to protect the name of Rangers Football Club and ensure the club continues as the same entity. Unfortunately, the bidders appear to be dropping by the day. But Paul has always been there, constantly saying that his Blue Knights group will do everything in the interests of the club. That’s what everything should be geared towards right now. The administrators must look at a takeover with a business plan in place for the next five years. What matters is that Rangers operate on an even keel again. Whyte has always said he is working in the best interests of the club. So why wouldn’t he want to sell to Paul when that appears to be his sole aim? Brian Kennedy has now been ruled out of the running but he has spoken in glowing terms about Paul. Kennedy knows what Paul is all about and what he’s trying to achieve at Rangers. He’s backing Paul and obviously believes it would be for the best if the Blue Knights gained control. The administrators are duty bound to do what is best for the club and the supporters. They are there to find the best buyer. If the person in question has a personality clash with Whyte – which appears to be the case with Paul – it shouldn’t matter. It’s not about that any more. The question the administrators have to ask themselves is: “Who are the best people to take Rangers forward?” It looks like that would be Paul’s Blue Knights group and if he needed any more encouragement to buy the club, surely Sunday’s Old Firm win would have done it? It was an incredible atmosphere at Ibrox and Rangers thoroughly deserved their 3-2 victory. Kyle Lafferty has caused a bit of a stir with his comments about Rangers being better than Celtic and the best in the SPL. And he’s right – to a certain extent. On their day, Rangers are on a level par with Celtic. But what separates them is the size of their squads. I would suggest that when Rangers get their best team on the pitch it’s as good as, if not better, than Celtic’s. The head-to-head record this season would back that theory up. Of the three Old Firm games so far, Rangers have won two of them at Ibrox quite convincingly. Celtic won the other one at Parkhead with Joe Ledley’s header – but Rangers had a good goal disallowed. So the starting 11s are evenly matched. But you don’t win titles with your best 11 players. You win a championship with the strength of your squad. And that’s why Celtic are way out in front this season. They have a stronger pool of players. At the start of the season it looked as if Rangers’ starting side might be good enough to win the league again but they didn’t have the squad to cope with losing key men through injury or, in Nikica Jelavic’s case, transfer. They lost big players at key times. Jelavic was sold in January, Steven Naismith has been injured since October, Lafferty has been out for a long period and Steven Whittaker has missed a lot of games. You saw it at Dundee United when Dorin Goian and Carlos Bocanegra were suspended. They are quality players and Rangers just can’t afford to lose them. Look at Celtic’s squad depth. They have various options at full-back and in central defence. Mark and Kelvin Wilson are struggling to get a game and they have the likes of Cha Du-Ri, Adam Matthews, Thomas Rogne, Charlie Mulgrew, Emilio Izaguirre. The list goes on. Rangers got their best defence back for the Celtic game and that backline was the most frugal in the SPL earlier this season. When they lost that momentum, with key players out, it all unravelled. Rangers couldn’t cope with the demands of the SPL and that’s when Celtic’s squad came to the fore. That’s why they will be the SPL champions. As told to Scott McDermott
Rangers: Craig Whyte on his time at Ibrox
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51515862
From the section Rangers
Craig Whyte is given a police escort leaving the High Court in Glasgow in September 2015
Craig Whyte is given a police escort leaving the High Court in Glasgow in September 2015
Craig Whyte will go down as one of the most controversial figures ever in Scottish football.
The businessman bought Sir David Murray’s shareholding in Rangers for just £1 in 2011, only for the Ibrox club to enter administration on 14 February 2012 with liquidation following months later.
On the day his autobiography Into The Bearpit is released, Whyte spoke to Tam Cowan and Stuart Cosgrove on BBC Radio Scotland’s Off The Ball.
Here, the 49-year-old, who was cleared of taking over the Glasgow club by fraud in 2017, says he “does not have much” to be sorry for during the saga, that he was “duped” by David Murray and explains what he would do differently if he had his chance in charge of Rangers again.
Rangers fraud trial – Craig Whyte found not guilty
16 things we learned from the Craig Whyte trial
Q: When [Daily Record journalist] Keith Jackson described you as having “wealth off the radar” [prior to takeover], how did you react to that?
CW: I was stunned at that. I remember picking up the paper down at Victoria Station and I was amazed that I had been called a billionaire. It was only later on that day that I found out the story of what actually happened from the PR guys. But I was as surprised as anybody else.
Q: So what had happened?
CW: What had happened was that the PR guys I was using in Glasgow had been dealing with the [Daily] Record and had given him [Jackson] a profile of me and it said that my company managed more than £1bn in assets. Of course, managing the assets isn’t the same as owning the assets. It’s completely different. There was no question of me saying I was a billionaire, I never said that. That was just tabloid nonsense.
Q: When you came into Rangers, the famous line put about by Sir David Murray is that he was “duped” by yourself. Was he?
CW: I think it’s more like the other way around. There were a lot of things that he didn’t disclose to me so he certainly wasn’t duped, and that was proved during the trial in 2017.
Q: Now, the trial in 2012, arrested and accused of fraud, and then acquitted, if you did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, who was to blame for the entire Rangers fiasco?
CW: I think it’s pretty obvious with the benefit of hindsight that they should never have entered into the EBT tax scheme. That was what was to blame, and the board that were around from the early 2000s up until 2011 kept it going. But they could’ve stopped it at any time when the liability was still manageable. They could’ve stopped buying players and could’ve done a multitude of things to resolve it long before I came along.
Q: Apart from that legendary pound, did you put any money into Rangers?
CW: Yes I did. The Ticketus money that everybody knows about, the infamous Ticketus deal where they put £20m or so in, was guaranteed by me personally. And they subsequently recovered seven-figure sums from me on that. I’ve probably put as much into Rangers as almost anybody else.
Q: Was there actually a pound? Did a pound transact?
CW: I’m told that it did. I personally don’t remember it but I’m told that somebody flipped a pound over the table. But it didn’t come from me.
Craig Whyte
Craig Whyte prepares to address the media and fans at Ibrox to signal their intention to enter administration
‘I never look at Scottish football results’
Q: Craig, I want to go back to your early days as a young man. Were you a Rangers fan and did you regularly either go to the games or support the club?
CW: I had a period of time where I went to the games when I was at school in Glasgow and after school – probably from about the ages of 16 to early 20s I went to the games.
Q: Do you look for their results now? Do you still care, is there an emotional attachment or not?
CW: No, I don’t live in Scotland. I never look at the Scottish football results. I’m in London a lot of the time.
Q: There’s always been a suggestion that your life was at risk, that there had been death threats. Genuinely, do you feel under pressure over the events that led to Rangers going bust?
CW: No, I’ve never felt any physical threat to me. I’ve walked about Glasgow and never had a problem. I still do it when I come to Scotland; I walk around Glasgow city centre and most the people I encounter are good natured.
Q: Who was your favourite Rangers player?
CW: I enjoyed watching Davie Cooper when I was younger. That was probably my favourite all-time player as someone who grew up in the 80s.
Davie Cooper
Craig Whyte says Davie Cooper was his favourite Rangers player
Q: When did you realise it was doomed?
CW: You always have hope until the very end but I think there are several events that you say, well, this is going to be a problem. One of them was when I met HMRC in Edinburgh and they told me: ‘look, we’re going to appeal, appeal and appeal. No matter if you win the first tribunal we’re going to keep appealing until we win.’ Then, I knew it was going to be difficult to survive.
‘I’ve got nothing to say to David Murray’
Q: What would you say to the Rangers fans listening right now?
CW: I’d say that, if they want to know what really happened, from the guy who was there in the middle of it all, they should read it and find out for themselves what happened. [They can] draw their own opinions from what I say. I don’t think I’ve got much to apologise for.
Q: What would you say to Sir David Murray?
CW: I’ve got nothing to say to David Murray.
Q: Have you spoken to him since this whole business?
CW: I haven’t spoken to him. The last time I saw him was in court in Glasgow; that was the last time I saw him. I’ve got no desire to see the guy again.
Q: As you reflect, is there something you would change?
CW: Yes, for sure. The main thing I would’ve changed, if I were to go back to 2011 and do the deal again, I’d put it [the club] into administration on the first day.
Q: You did say you’re a Rangers fan. Did you go in to that venture to help the club or were you simply looking to help Craig Whyte?
CW: I was looking to make a profit, no question about that.
Craig Whyte
Craig Whyte walks on to the Ibrox pitch in 2011
‘I walked away without a penny’
Q: Did you think it was possible to make a profit? You previously had a reputation for turning companies round, for asset stripping. What was your motivation? Did you think there was money there to be made?
CW: Yes, for sure. It has the potential to be a great business. It’s got 50,000 people prepared to buy season tickets every year. It’s quite a sticky purchase. People will go back and do it again and again. There’s definitely potential for that business to make a good profit. When somebody finally turns it around, you only have to look at Celtic on the other side of the city to see what’s possible, and there’s no reason why Rangers in the long term can’t do the same as Celtic, the potential is there.
Q: Did you make a profit? You got £24m when you went to the club via Ticketus. What happened to that money precisely?
CW: It all went into paying the bills at the club.
Q: So you didn’t walk away with any of that money whatsoever?
CW: Not a single penny. The only money I ever got out of Rangers… I think once the club paid a parking ticket for me which was 60 quid and the financial controller complained about that.
Q: One emotionally very, very divisive issue, which to this day divides Scottish football, and that is are Rangers a new club? What’s your view?
CW: Yes, obviously they are.
Rangers liquidators finally settle tax case as eye-watering EBT figure shows club could never have been saved
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/rangers-liquidators-finally-settle-tax-case-as-eye-watering-ebt-figure-shows-club-could-never-have-been-saved-3946842
There is a certain irony to financial analyses concerning Rangers present and past this week.
Andrew Smith
By Andrew Smith
3 days ago
Updated
8th Dec 2022, 12:57pm
8 Comments
On Tuesday, the club’s board devoted significant energies at their AGM to detail how recent impressive revenues have not provided the slush fund presumed. Little more than a day later, came the publication of the latest report from joint liquidators of the oldco Rangers, BDO. The firm tasked with acting for the creditors left hugely out of pocket when the previous incarnation of the Ibrox club went bust in June 2012. Detailed in that report, definitely, is the eye-watering extent to which this Rangers used the public purse, not revenues, as a slush fund by way of maleficence.
Rangers, under former owner David Murray, were propelled headlong towards liquidation when HMRC caught on to their misuse of an Employee Benefits Trust scheme. EBTs, as they are known, were utilised from 2001 to 2011 to avoid paying tax and national insurance on player and staff salaries funnelled through them. Following a typically protracted legal toing-and-froing, these were deemed to have breached tax legislation by a Supreme Court ruling in 2017.
Now, BDO, have finally reached agreement with HMRC on the tax denied to the Treasury coffers by Rangers. First, and principally, during the Murray era, and then after Craig Whyte bought the club from the Edinbugh-based businessman for a £1 in May 2011 and proceeded to withhold tax. A sale rushed through because Murray was then coming under severe pressure from Lloyds Bank as his empire had racked up a mountainous debt that the bank largely was on the hook for.
Liquidators of Rangers’ former operating company have finally settled their tax dispute after agreeing a £56m deal with HMRC. (Photo by Craig Foy / SNS Group)
Liquidators of Rangers’ former operating company have finally settled their tax dispute after agreeing a £56m deal with HMRC. (Photo by Craig Foy / SNS Group)
HMRC had set out the liabilities from the oldco Rangers – which now goes under the name RFC 2021 P.L.C (formerly the Rangers Football Club P.L.C, “the Company”) in Liquidation, in the BDO report – as £64.5m. This was the accumulation of a £48.8m claim from the EBT scheme, £4m from the small tax case, £10.2m from the Whyte era, and £1.2m from an inheritance claim. The small or, as it became known, ‘wee’ tax case related to another tax avoidance scheme concerning player bonuses uncovered during Whyte’s due diligence, and to which Rangers straight away admitted.
BDO have now reached a “negotiated resolution” that has resulted in a “composite settlement” of £56m for the whole HMRC claim. Or, if you prefer, almost 87% of what the tax authority sought to have lodged.
This conclusion to an interminable saga is significant since there were some bizarre moves three years ago to promote the notion that gross miscalculation by HMRC over EBTs had prevented Murray attracting a buyer beyond the dubious turnaround specialist Whyte to spare the old Rangers from liquidation. Yet, even without Whyte’s arrival on the scene and his subsequent mismanagement, Rangers would still have been left with a near £50m bill to HMRC. A liability they could never have satisfied and, as this demand hadn’t crystallised in 2011, never found an alternative buyer to step forward back then. Especially when there was an additional £18m bank debt Lloyds demanded be repaid before sanctioning any sale of the Ibrox club.
Advertisement
It doesn’t affect the finances of the current Rangers – under a different company structure – that creditors are in line to receive just over 14p in the pound over the car crash that the club’s finances became before they hit the wall. But these absolutes should surely end any further misguided attempts to present a scenario in which Rangers could have avoided liquidation and the need, essentially, to reform in 2012.