To Keep Rangers Afloat, Can Duff & Phelps Seek Judicial Review of HMRC’s Rejection of the CVA?

Mark Twain once said “Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”

Today’s newspapers in Scotland have pronounced the last rites over Rangers Football Club. However, I suggest in this piece that the Death Certificate could have been signed prematurely, and that there remains an option, by taking on HMRC in court, which might give Duff & Phelps and Mr Green enough “oxygen” to keep Rangers alive into next season and potentially an increased offer to creditors.

The answer to the question at the top of the page is “yes”, in that an administrative decision, as this is, and carried out by a public authority, can generally be subject to consideration and review by the Court. In reality, there are various reasons why, even if it did not succeed, it could still work to the advantage of Rangers and of Mr Green.

I thought about it when reading Mr Green’s thoughts from yesterday as detailed on the official Rangers website. I have added emphases to the relevant parts of the edited article.


CHARLES GREEN admits HMRC’s decision to reject his consortium’s CVA proposal left him speechless and has accused them of giving Rangers fans false hope it would go through.

Green had hoped his group could take control whilst keeping the current company in operation and had been led to believe that was likely to happen. But he feels the goalposts have been moved somewhat and is hugely frustrated by a move which leaves his investors with little option but to revert to an alternative plan.

“It’s massively disappointing and I think to some extent we have been misled by HMRC,” Green said.

“Duff and Phelps have consistently said to me that they were in dialogue with HMRC and that they hadn’t rejected the CVA route.

“Irrespective of what I was being told by HMRC, my own advisors at Deloitte have been in dialogue with them too.

To see them today saying this is a ‘policy decision’ leaves me speechless. If that’s the case, is that a policy that was invented this week?

“It would also have removed the false hope from Rangers fans. There is no possible way that this is better for creditors.

“I’ve read HMRC’s statement which says they’ve chosen this route so that they can pursue former directors. I’m not a lawyer but if a former director has done something wrong, he should be pursued. I don’t believe turning down a CVA is a price worth paying to pursue previous directors.”


There is no appeal against the decision of HMRC to reject the CVA proposal. However, as a public authority, and acting in a discretionary matter, subject to published policies, HMRC has a duty to obey the law, and to act fairly within the terms of it.

The HMRC website specifically recognises this duty and the option of Judicial Review. It states:-

“For most tax matters there are appeal procedures set out in law that enable disputes between the customer and HMRC to be settled. But in some cases there is no right of appeal to the tribunal against HMRC actions.

This is mainly where the decision made is in relation to a discretionary matter, for example a decision on whether a late claim should be accepted, or the application of Extra-Statutory Concessions. Where there is no statutory right of appeal a customer may turn to judicial review to take the dispute forward.

A customer may seek judicial review if they believe that an HMRC officer is not carrying out, or is delaying in carrying out their duties, has assumed powers to which they were not entitled or did not properly exercise their discretion, for example by refusing to apply an Extra-Statutory Concession.

Judicial review may also look at HMRC decisions where the dispute is not about whether the decision is technically correct but where a customer claims that they were misdirected and in consequence suffered disadvantage, for example that a return is wrong because they relied on incorrect advice received from HMRC.

Judicial review may also consider cases where the customer believes that an HMRC officer has not listened properly to their representations or has acted in a way that appears to be unfair.”


HMRC accepts, as it has to, the obligation to ensure that its decisions are fair and reasonable and procedurally sound.

Accordingly, it cannot take account of irrelevant factors, or ignore relevant ones, when arriving at its decision.

It must not make an unreasonable decision. An unreasonable decision is one that no reasonable authority could have come to in the same circumstances and having the same information.

There must be no question of bias or undue influence.

The policy being implemented must also be legitimate in connection with the rules applicable to the particular area.

The authority must act fairly and ought not to mislead parties as to its procedures or intentions.

Finally, and most relevant here, those responsible for the implementation of a policy must be prepared on the one hand to be consistent and on the other hand they must be prepared to consider cases which do not come within it in order to decide if an exception should be made.  As Sedley J. said in  R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hamble Fisheries(Offshore)  [1995] 1 All ER 714 at 722 a-c:

‘there are two conflicting imperatives in public law: the first is that  while a policy may be adopted for the exercise of a discretion, it must not be applied with a rigidity which excludes consideration of possible departure in individual cases … the second is that a discretionary public law power must not be exercised arbitrarily  or with partiality as between individuals or classes potentially affected by it … The line between individual consideration and inconsistency, slender enough in theory, can be imperceptible in practice .’


There is also the matter of legitimate expectation. Lady Cosgrove considered this in McPhee v North Lanarkshire Council 1998 SLT 1317 where she noted:-

“The proposition advanced by counsel for the respondents was that while a public body must have regard to the legitimate expectations which arise from an assurance it has given, it may depart from such an earlier assurance when it comes to take a decision in the exercise of its statutory discretion but in doing so it will be tested by reference to whether or not the decision in question was one which was reasonable in the Wednesbury sense (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation). It was important to bear in mind that the expectation said to have been raised in the present case was in respect of a matter of substance rather than of procedure. Reference was made in this connection to the opinion of Hirst LJ in R v Home Secretary, ex p Hargreaves at [1997] 1 WLR, p 921: “On matters of substance (as contrasted with procedure) Wednesbury provides the correct test” His Lordship characterised as heresy the rejection by Sedley J in Hamble Offshore Fisheries of the proposition that neither precedent nor principle goes further than the enforcement of legitimate procedural expectations. The basis of the attack on Sedley J’s approach was that the authorities cited by him dealt only with alleged procedural irregularities on the part of a minister in respect of which it was appropriate for the court to conduct an inquiry into the fairness of the procedure followed, but not with decisions on matters of substance.

Reference was also made by counsel to R v Beatrix Potter School, ex p K [1997] E.L.R. 468 as an example of the application of the proposition advanced by him. In that case the applicant, K, was a pupil attending the Beatrix Potter nursery school. The headmaster of the main school confirmed that a place was available for her by letter to her parents dated 19 July 1996 stating that K would enter school on the morning of 9 September 1996. On receipt, the applicant’s mother bought her a school uniform but later that day the head teacher rang up and told her that the offer was withdrawn. It was argued that the offer gave rise to a legitimate expectation based on an express promise which was relied on and gave rise to some detriment. The court dismissed the application and held that while all the factors necessary to give rise to legitimate expectation existed, that was only a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the respondent had acted Wednesbury unreasonably. In considering the Wednesbury principle and whether the withdrawal of the offer was unreasonable, the court came to the clearest conclusion that it was impossible to categorise the decision to withdraw the offer as Wednesbury unreasonable. In relation to legitimate expectation Popplewell J said (at [1997] ELR, p 476): “Legitimate expectation is in my view a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the respondents have acted Wednesbury unreasonably. In some cases it might be the only factor and would therefore be wholly decisive in an applicant’s claim. In other cases it may be no more than one of the matters to be taken into account. It is really an aspect of the general public law obligation and the obligation on the respondents not to act unreasonably” .

Reference was also made to R v London Borough of Brent, ex p McDonagh, (1989) 21 H.L.R. 494 a case in which the applicant who was a traveller was furnished with a letter stating inter alia that the respondents, the local authority council, intended to take action to limit the number of travellers on the site she was then occupying but that in the meantime no action would be taken against the recipients of the letter pending the availability of a proper site. The applicant was subsequently evicted and sought judicial review on the basis that she had a legitimate expectation arising from the letter sent to her by the respondents that she would not be evicted from the site without either being offered an alternative pitch or at the very least without being informed of the proposal to be evicted and being given the chance to make representations. It was held that the said letter from the respondents did give rise to such a legitimate expectation and the respondents’ decision was quashed with the effect that it was open to them to reconsider the matter and to reach a fresh decision taking into account the representations of the applicant.”

How is this applicable to Rangers?

From what Mr Green has said, he considers that he has been misled by HMRC. He states that HMRC have been in ongoing discussions with his advisers and with Duff & Phelps. He does not accept that this is even-handed policy implementation, and doubts if the policy either existed, or if it did, if it had been considered.

He also disagrees with the substance of the decision, namely that the rejection of the CVA by HMRC is not in the best interests of creditors. He refers to “false hope” being given to Rangers fans.

On one reading this raises potential arguments under the following headings:-

1                     Legitimate expectations – if it can be shown that HMRC, either explicitly or implicitly, indicated that a CVA was going to be acceptable to them;

2                     Procedural unfairness – if HMRC has misled Rangers, D&P and Mr Green; and

3                     Wednesbury unreasonableness in relation to the decision itself.

Each of these on its own would give a ground for challenging the HMRC decision. An application for Judicial Review would need to be lodged at the Court of Session, and there would be a first hearing to determine if there was a stateable case. In relation to Rangers’ Judicial Review of the SFA Disciplinary process, the parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute and as it was simply a dispute on legal interpretation, the first hearing was in effect the full hearing.

Such a concession could in theory be made here, but I suspect that HMRC would not agree that what was alleged by Mr Green was said, or at best that Mr Green/Rangers/D&P have misinterpreted it.

Therefore, if the case got through the first hearing a full hearing would be needed, and even on an expedited basis that would be some time ahead. That would therefore, I suggest, leave Rangers in limbo, but with D&P still in place.

The Court would not tell HMRC to accept the CVA, unless there were very clear grounds giving rise to the “legitimate expectation” which would bar HMRC from backtracking. Instead the court would, at best, order HMRC to re-consider its opposition to the CVA.

How might this benefit Rangers/Mr Green?

If the CVA decision was left “up in the air” pending a full hearing, then D&P would be able to argue that the existing Rangers (In Administration) was entitled to play in the SPL in season 2012-2013 no questions asked, subject to any separate disciplinary matter arising of course.

That might allow Mr Green and his consortium to raise more funds; might allow some progress to a settlement of the Rangers v Collyer Bristow case; and could allow there to be a favourable outcome for Ticketus pursuing Mr Whyte and his companies in relation to the guarantee. Anything recovered by Ticketus from Mr Whyte reduces their claim to the CVA pot.

Therefore, potentially, a Judicial Review action, even where it fails at a full hearing, could allow D&P to stay in place and to increase the size of the fund for distribution to creditors.

The next question would be how Mr Green funds Rangers (In Administration) in the SPL. However knowing that the club would be in the SPL would, I am sure, lead to sales of many season tickets, though some will be unsold due to the uncertainty of the situation. Therefore, an ongoing Rangers, perhaps funded by a couple of strategic player sales, could be in position to make an increased offer a few months down the line. At that stage, how would HMRC react?

For the reasons advanced, I think it would be a long shot to successfully overturn the HMRC decision. It is less so to get past a first hearing.

It would buy Mr Green and D&P time to get a better deal for creditors, which after all is D&P’s job.

Maybe, just maybe, we will see Counsel for Rangers on his feet in the Court as soon as HMRC casts its vote against the CVA?

Of course, all this would be rendered moot if Ticketus voted against the CVA as well, and their vote was sufficient to block it as well. Suddenly, after Ticketus having become irrelevant to the CVA yesterday, their vote could still have a bearing on what, if any, future Rangers Football Club has.


Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Administration, Charles Green, Judicial Review, Rangers

49 responses to “To Keep Rangers Afloat, Can Duff & Phelps Seek Judicial Review of HMRC’s Rejection of the CVA?

  1. Boss Hogg

    It will be illuminating to see what historians, and possibly forensic accounts, make of the Rangers story. For anyone interested in root cause analysis – generally not a stampede – the key question will be at what point, under the stewardship of whom, did Rangers cross the threshold into an irredeemable tailspin of doom. Doubtless there will be a tide of anecdotal opinion on this. Whether that accords with a seemingly innocuous little acorn of hidden truth will hopefully emerge in due course. Of one thing I’m sure: there is mileage in this saga yet.

      • Hugh Jarse

        For clarity, by which I mean the start of the Murray/Souness project that saw the spending of unprecedented sums in the Scottish game, possibly beyond their means even then, that broke the challenge of the New Firm, Hearts and Hibs and took Celtic to the brink.

        The Scottish game started its long, slow death spiral then. The chance for rebirth is now.

    • Michael

      Boss Hogg,
      Great point. Football historians will have a big say. I think I’ll become one of them when I grow up and my first paper will be titled “The short history of Rangers 2012”.

  2. TonyD


    Rfc(IL) are in the process of appealing a massive claim from HMRC on their mis-use of the EBT’s. By all accounts this will go against them. They prevaricated on the small tax case even after accepting liability and Whyte during his tenure failed to pay c£14 million of VAT, PAYE and NIC’s despite deducting them at source.

    In order for an appeal or a review to take, there has surely to be viable grounds. What precisely has HMRC done wrong in this whole process to merit a JR

    I know they are a most arrogant outfit but a judicial review given what has gone before is surely streatching it a bit?

  3. john

    The above is working on the assumption that Green is telling the truth… that away back in March (was he in play) HMRC were discussing a CVA proposal that hadnt been formalised and wasnt backed by a consortium or individual/company. I cant see anyone at HMRC being in verbal agreement with anyone at RFC(il) until there was something in writing to discuss. Green seems to open hie mouth and spout nonsense… he claimed there was a precedent for a New Club in the SPL and that all employees contracts will be moved to New Club again not so.
    I would suggest that when HMRC were being asked by who ever was this months preferred bidder for status they were told until we see some form of documentation on a CVA or other debt repayment plan we cannot discuss. This would be taken as a positive statement as they were not told bluntly to fex off….
    One thing I am sure of Green seems to be getting an easy ride and has lots to say without putting much on the table… maybe he has realised he just lost 200k the payment for exclusivity (it was supposed to be 500k as per TBK)

  4. Hugh Jarse

    Seriously Paul, aren’t you stretching it a bit on this one?

    I would have thought HMRCs response/defence would be that they were open to the CVA route but didn’t reject until they saw the actual (derisory) offer that was put to them.

    Greens bluster is cover for his soon to be walking away.

  5. reilly1926

    A phrase used a lot to desipher stories like the RFC(IA) one is “follow the money” and with that in mind I would suggest that Charlie and his buddies would rather shell out £5.5m than £8.2m.

    CG got the required result yesterday and so a court case against HMRC will not be forthcoming. Green might complain about the lack of European football and the shortfall in revenue as a result but in all honesty should Rangers or indeed Celtic be seriously budgeting for an extended run in Europe. I think not. His phoney annoyance at HMRC yesterday was just that.

    Green is in this for an early doors share issue. That’s where he thinks that the big money is to be made. It’s a huge gamble and going by previous efforts by Murray one doomed to failure. He will find that RFC(IA) fans are not as generous as Celtic or indeed Sheffield Utd fans when it comes to investing in their club. They have a different mindset.

    • I wonder how much money Green would be able to put together for a share issue. In my limited understanding of these things, I believe that he would be required to underwrite the total value of the shares before they could be issued. In the light of the feeble uptake of David Murray’s previous Rangers share issue, it would be foolish to expect that Green would not have to spend a very large sum of money to buy up the unwanted shares at the end of the process.

  6. Richboy

    According to those present at the time, Craig Whyte started to panic when Rangers were eliminated from the Europa league in the early stages. Mr Whyte realised that the millions he needed fom the group stages would not eventuate and the 10 million hole he spoke of sent the club spiralling into administration.

    Mr Green seems to be very concerned about an extra two year ban from Europe as I am sure a large part of his strategy was attached to playing in European Cups. I would not be surprised to see Mr Green and his entourage exit stage left on Thursday afternoon.

    As for Duff and Phelps part in this, don’t get me started……

  7. james larkin

    good devil’s advocate piece…but…the bottom line is…cheats fc did nor pass on the PAYE, NIC and VAT from 2011 to entering administration in 2012.

    i am also led to believe that the duffers continued with this policy of not passing on the PAYE, NIC and VAT since they took “control”.

    maybe the second part is wrong…i don’t know…but the first part is where HMRC have based their decision ?

    i do believe that an alternative was put to rfc(ia)…they be given 10/20 years to pay back the debt – with a stipulated amount set (on top of what they would pay as a normal trading company…

  8. james larkin

    sorry…should have read

    good devil’s advocate piece…but…the bottom line is…cheats fc did nor pass on the PAYE, NIC and VAT from 2011 to entering administration in 2012.

    i am also led to believe that the duffers continued with this policy of not passing on the PAYE, NIC and VAT since they took “control”.

    maybe the second part is wrong…i don’t know…but the first part is where HMRC have based their decision ?

    i do believe that an alternative SHOULD HAVE BEEN put to rfc(ia)…they be given 10/20 years to pay back the debt – with a stipulated amount set (on top of what they would pay as a normal trading company…

  9. JimBhoy

    I think HMRC’s statement yesterday basically stating the liquidator will chase down the actual perpetrators to get a return will see Ticketus vote against a CVA as will most other creditors, based on the assumption that they have faith in Hector and effectively have no idea what would be left in the pot once D&P get their wedge (£2 or £3m maybe).
    Green is not in this for the benefit of Rangers ultimately he is a businessman.
    Be interesting to see if the liquidators entertain Green’s bid at all or do the right thing and offer up the assets in a public sale. They have the power to Nullify any deals they think will harm what the creditors could get and i would argue that £5,5m for all Rangers’ assets is derisory and green has even suggested they are worth 20 times that, ie, his selling point to potential investors.
    On a purely footballing point can we really see the 2 outstanding SFA/SPL reviews coming out with anything bar the ultimate sanction? For Rangers to dodge that bullet and be in the SPL next season the only option IMO is to purchase and rebadge another SPL team, how does that affect the present staff I am not sure if they would TUPE across.

  10. mick

    its over for them due to cheating and having a twisted we are the people attiude not all rangers fans are bad thou murry and co loved nothing more than making them bitter and loyal so he could rob them blind its sad

  11. SouthernExile


    Wake up, smell the coffee! They really are gone!

    Much better focusing on how the D&P/Green attempted stitch-up can be thwarted!

  12. maricharle

    Talks cheap where Greens concerned we all know that but I wonder how many of his so called investors are now realizing it. As the process of Judicial Review is very costly I wonder who he would get to fund him if he went down this route. There’s no doubt those so called investors have been fed the same sh””e as the rangers fans can you really see them parting with their cash. They’ll be running for the hills if they have any sense.
    Some say the devil is dead I think he’s buired in ibrokes trying to take the taxpayers for a ride

  13. Paul

    You are such a tease!

    Possible- yes
    probable- no

  14. Michael

    Paul, I think you are being naughty here and you just want the RFFF to spend the last of their bawbees on more legal fees.

    Talking about legal fees, who pays if Ranger (IA) (IL) lose the case against Collyer Bristow? Is the final cost already factored into Duff and Duffer’s costs?

  15. Den

    They could go for a review and waste more time and money that they don’t have. They could win but gain nothing.

    The CVA was proposed and the vote is tomorrow. Nobody was strung along but chose to interpret professionalism or caution from HMRC as a sign of agreement or just spun lies to try to force their hand.

    HMRC couldn’t accept an insulting offer from a Company that had gone back on a previous deal and withheld £14m of deductions over a year and spent.

    If you read HMRC policy on accepting a CVA the Rangers CVA was a non starter.

    If the Fighting Fund want to use their money to some effect they will fund the Creditors in a bid to stop the assets being handed over to Green and his non existent consortium.

  16. John


    I may be seeing this too simplistically but might HMRC not reasobnably argue that of course they encouraged a CVA attempt, and, had that CVA offered 70/75/80 pence in the pound, they might have been more inclined to accept? When it became very clear that they were going to receive less than 10% they acted as quickly as they could, following their very open, transparent and published policy.

  17. These fabled “ongoing discussions” with HMRC, to which D&P and Emerald Green so often refer, may well have run along these lines:

    Hector: Where’s the money you owe us?
    D&P: Er . . . we’re working on it.
    Hector: You’d better get the finger out.
    D&P: Um . . . can we get back to you on that one?
    Hector: You’d better. And soon.

    Just because HMRC were allowing D&P sufficient time to put a CVA proposal together, that is no reason to presume that Hector has an obligation to like the results. It’s the debtor’s responsibility to find a way to satisfy the creditor. The creditor does not have an equivalent duty to help the debtor get off the hook.

    But let us assume that Rangers are indeed brazen enough to seek a judicial review (and that is not an unjustified assumption, given their antics over the last few years in the Court of Session and the FTT ) and that they have some strategic reason for doing so.
    Would HMRC be justified in claiming that they had been keeping an open mind on developments? The turning point came when they heard Emerald spouting off about the tens of millions of pounds of investment which he was lining up and the nineteen top-class players he was planning to bring to Ibrox as soon as the creditors had been fobbed off with a derisory offer. Upon learning these things, Hector could reasonably state that his attitude hardened because it had become clear – as a matter of substantial fact – that next to no concern was being paid to the interests of the creditors. This would answer Emerald’s pathetic question about “what had changed since March in the last week or so.”
    Or is that too simplistic an argument?

  18. Glover

    Given the issue with timing, my prediction is that the only solution that will allow Rangers to continue in the league next season will be the purchase of another club with a ticket. There is lots of evidence that this solution is the only way out and I’m amazed that there has been no real public debate about this solution. So here goes:

    SPL: St Mirren would be the obvious choice.
    SFL1: Dundee would be a good bet as this would probably also allow them access to the SPL through promotion. Lots of others to choose from, Hamilton, Cowdenbeath, Livingstone, Partick Thistle or Dumbarton. Key will be the debt that these clubs currently owe.

    SFL2: Airdrie would be nice and probably most likely given the support by their Chairman for his ‘second’ club. There are also lots of clubs in this division that could offer a cheap route back.
    SFL3: East Stirling or perhaps Clyde who are constantly under financial pressure.

    I also wonder whether the purchase of a club would get round the 3 year euro ban. Would purchase of Dundee allow them to say that they have access to 3 years accounts? Dundee may not be the best example given their past history.

    Any views?

    • Jim Harkins

      Given the SPL’s performance so far, I would bet that Doncaster can find sufficient leeway in the rule book to make a takeover feasible. The major obstacle will be the time it will take to raise funds.

    • JimBhoy

      See my earlier submission in this thread mate. I came to the same conclusion a few weeks back and St Mirren’s chairman is looking to sell up for £1.5m apparently, seems an obvious option for the BKs or equivalent fans group and ties in with the present Rangers MO, Doesn’t matter how much we f**k things up for the rest as long as we are OK.. SFA are key to all this, again see my assumption on that in the earlier thread.

    • Hugh Jarse

      I’m now convinced that the window between now and the start of next season is so short that there is close to zero probability of New Club playing football at Ibrox next season.

      The apparent complete lack of any contingency planning suggests that Rangers either expected the CVA to go through and oldco continue or the Plan B of newco on a nod and a wink to be allowed.

      It doesn’t look like the groundwork has been done for the purchaser of Ibrox – if sale is concluded imminently and not challenged – to be able to take a credible business plan (as part of a proposal to join) the governing body of any league.

      What a mess.

  19. JimBhoy

    — From today’s Daily Record, i don’t buy it i just googled Rangers…

    A Sky insider said: “Three years without Rangers, while Rangers climbed from the Third Division to the Second, then the First and then the SPL, would blow the whole deal out of the water.”
    “If Rangers are kicked out of the SPL, the longest Sky will wait for them to return is a year.
    “It’s just not worth it commercially if it’s going to be any longer than 12 months with no Old Firm league games while Rangers climb back up the leagues.
    “Four Old Firm games a season is what Sky export around Britain and around the world – that’s what they pay for.
    “No Rangers equals no Sky, unless Gers are back very soon.”

    — My Mate works for SKY-BSKYB, supports Rangers and is gutted by this whole sorry mess, would he be a representative of a “Sky Insider”.?

    You would think the DR would have learned from getting their fingers burned so many times on this story, often a day behind or coming out with sweeping statements/Exclusives with no foundation whatsoever. Whenever a newspaper (used in its loosest possible sense) uses the anonimity card, ‘Insider, spokesperson, we have it on good authority etc’ you know they are taking a load of doo doo..!
    Personally I think the game will be without RANGERS in any form (except taking over another club, f*****g up a well run club for their own desperate survival) for at least a year. SFA do your duty..!

  20. Paul – I posted it on RTC but I have a direct question for you:
    In response to a post I read on here that there was a 3 year limit for prosecution – not sure if that was confirmed…David Murray said “it was three years ago this month that I stood down as chairman. The events that have unfolded since are most regrettable”

    Surely when it comes to legal issues there can’t be a “hide it for 3 years and get off Scot-free” loophole. Is it 3 years from the discovery or notice an offence has been commited?

    Shirley his non payment of various tax bills and cases, incurred under his ownership and whilst he was chairman, which were either appealed or were agreed to but payment stalled until he’d managed to find a “not fit and proper” person to pass the buck to doesn’t let him off the hook…

    Can you give me your thoughts on this?

    • Hugh Jarse

      Liquidators investigate the 3 years up to the date of administration ie Feb 14th, not the date of the liquidators appointment If they find evidence of malfeasance HMRC can go back 20 (that is TWENTY) years.

      • mick

        whats the likely hood of murry and whyte doing time for tax evision ?

      • Hugh Jarse

        Hard to say. However, as time has worn on it has become apparent that questionable things have been going on for a long time and I would be surprised if there were not civil and criminal charges arising from the investigation. It would be premature to speculate on what specific charges there might be and what the outcome of any subsequent legal proceedings would be. I also don’t thinkit will be restricted to just Whyte and Murray. All Directors and the Company Secretary will be under the spotlight.

      • Thanks Hugh. Was the answer I was hoping for 🙂

  21. mabawsa ritchie

    che paul suggesting d and p hang around rangers any longer, u really do want to see gers ground sharing with your rovers. its time to sort this out but these two morris dancers at the sfa and spl are way out their depth. cg struggling too, bks a poor lot also. the last gers bal sheet i saw had FIXED assets of £110mthis has been magicd down to 5.5m. a proper cva would have got through even hmrc said it

  22. Glazert Tim

    Is Sir Walter of Cardigan using his EBT reward points to launch his takeover bid.

    His ‘last gasp attempt’ was all for show. He is the equivalent of the guy in the pub saying “Oh I was going to get that round.” Just as you hand your cash to the barman.

  23. Nobody Knows

    Paul, can you confirm from reading the CVA proposal tabled if the freehold property and leasehold property of Ibrox, Murray Park and Albion Car Park were included in Sale to CG consortium? It appears to be excluded but would like your valued legal opinion. It has been queried on RTC as well. Thanks

    • Hugh Jarse

      It is included.

      Whether the sale stands or not remains to be seen. Potential challenges would come from BDO (when they are actually appointed, liquidation has yet to start), individual creditors, RFC (IA) shareholders, and Craig Whyte.

      Fat lady hasn’t even taken the stage yet.

      • degough

        Have not seen any speculation that the sale to Green will be challenged. Surely BDO would have asked the administrators to hold the sale if they were going to challenge it?

      • Hugh Jarse

        Regardless of any speculation – would the MSM report it anyway? – the sale is still IMHO challengeable. The question is by whom and when?

      • Hugh Jarse

        Also, BDO are not in a position to do anything until they are actually appointed.

  24. Niall Walker.

    Good day all,

    I fear another financial fiasco beckons, Green struggled to raise 5.5 million, a newco without the full support of all Rangers fans will not survive, and they wll be in administration within 6 months.
    I do not believe Green will manage to persuade any investor to cover the inevitable losses and Rangers will simpy run out of working capital…..again.

    Most of the investment promised was based on a CVA being accepted, a newco is just not worth the risk.

    • Hugh Jarse

      Hello Niall, for once we agree 😉

      However, it may not come to that.

      As it stands today, Mr Green owns a property speculation company headquartered out of a former football stadium. Remember this is the same Charles Green that said he would plough up Sheffield United’s pitch and grow veg if it was more profitable than football.

      He doesn’t, yet, run a football club. He has no players and no license to play in any league. He needs to persuade existing Rangers employees to TUPE over to Sevco United or otherwise assemble a squad. He also needs to persuade a governing body to let him play in their league.

      As you rightly allude to, he needs to raise sufficient working capital to get through a season – which looks pretty unlikely from here. He needs to do this quickly as part of the proposal he will need to urnish those governing bodies with.

      When Green came on the scene there were many who warned that he was an asset stripper. I guess we’ll find out quite soon.

      • Hugh Jarse

        Urnish = furnish

      • Niall Walker.

        Morning Hugh,

        I do not believe Green will persuade any high earners to transfer to Newco to enable him to sell them, this throws his cash flow projections out the window. It was going to be difficult to maintain the fans loyalty without Walter Smiths intrusion, now it is impossible. All of this adds up to no major investment, and without investment Rangers can not be restructured and stabilised.

        Logic dictates the two consortiums merge into one, hopefully both sides see sense or this fiasco will turn into a vaudeville farce.

      • Hugh Jarse

        Its already a farce!

        I can’t see the consortia merging as the Smith faction have defaulted to bullying and intimidation with the tacit support of the MSM. If nothing else Charles Green has demonstrated that he has an amazing amount of brass neck. He’ll sell, but it will be on his terms.

        I also note with interest Alex Thomson’s tweet regarding an “interesting conversation” with Craig Whyte. This charlatan still has a huge part to play in things.

        There are definitely a few acts left in this play!

        I do not believe that there will be any football played at Ibrox next season. There will be no Rangers at all next year. There are too many unresolved issues for any faction to take a proposal to a governing body that demonstrates an ability to fulfil fixtures in a league that starts in 6 weeks time.

        The factions and the fans have 12 months to sort out if there is to be a new club competing in 2013/14 that claims to be the reincarnation of the former RFC. If I was a betting man I would have my money on the (red, white and) Blue Brazil.

  25. Niall Walker.


    Time and money are both running out for Rangers, maybe it will act as a catalyst for a merger of interests, it is certainly a more viable option than sitting out for a year watching Ibrox crumble into disrepair.

  26. seems to me that the taxman..hmrc…still have a lot to do as far as rangers are concerned….legally, to my undersyanding, the assets of the club…ie…the training ground, ibrox stadium and the car park, could not legally be sold to MR GREEN, as, at the point in time that they were purchased, the club wzs not in administration, but liquidation…i also understand hmrc have a pending emergency court case to seize these assets…any thoughts on this anyone…

    • Niall Walker.

      I believe they have the power to prevent the sale, but their statement seems to convey acceptance of the sale for 5.5 million.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s