Charles Green – The Value of the Assets of Rangers FC – Pennies or Millions of Pounds?

The number of talking points arising from Mr Green’s proclamation earlier this week means I have not been able to finish my all-encompassing analysis. Instead I am putting up comments on parts of the statement.

Today’s deals with the following words by Mr Green:-

“To make it crystal clear, the new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.

“Any attempt to undermine or diminish the value of those assets will be met with the stiffest resistance, including legal recourse.”

Charles Green, CEO of the Rangers FC Ltd

Let us remind ourselves what these assets consisted of, shall we?

Asset realisations  




The SPL Share  


The SFA Membership  


Leasehold Interests  


Player Contracts & Registrations  




Subsidiary Companies Share Capital  


Heritable Properties  


Plant & Machinery  



Now, as is well known, the value of something is not necessarily what someone pays for it. Assets too can appreciate, whether by change of circumstances, supply and demand, or some work being done to improve the value.

Here we have the collection of assets of Rangers FC, purchased by Sevco (used to refer to newco and not as a disparaging term, for the avoidance of doubt) for the grand total of £5,500,000. Mr Green, as a wise and prudent, though not always 100% successful businessman, wants to protect his assets.

Therefore he threatens the SPL, and indeed anyone else, to take their figurative tanks off his lawn. He will take action to prevent diminution of value of his assets.

He says this in the context of the SPL Independent Commission, and the calls not to strip titles from Rangers. One would think that these assets, being the titles, history and the rest, were worth huge sums, especially considering the extent to which the Rangers supporters go on about the issue, and the unfairness of it.

So how much did Sevco pay for these assets, which Mr Green will defend with the utmost vigour?

He might be talking about the players, but he is already having that fight over the players who “walked away” thus depriving Sevco of many millions of pounds Mr Green thought they were due (and for which they paid the grand total of just under £2.75 million.)

Nor is anyone taking about attacking the value of Murray Park, the Albion Car Park and Ibrox Stadium itself (bought for a grand total of £1.5 million.)

No one is seeking to attack or diminish the value of the Plant and Machinery either.

So we are left with Goodwill, the SPL share, the SFA membership, Leasehold Interests, Stock and Subsidiary Companies Share Capital.

In this liquorice allsorts collection is found the “history” of Rangers, the world-record breaking titles and honours, the trophies, as well as the trademarks and intellectual property comprised in the Rangers name, symbols, logos and the rest. Indeed this package of assets also included the money due to Rangers FC as SPL prize money – a sum in excess of £2 million!

Let’s ignore that for now, as it is patently ridiculous that in an open and above board sale of assets the price paid for the assets would be 0.0005% of the cash value of one of the assets, said cash being due and payable within two or at most three months of the purchase.

So how much was paid for these assets which, according to Mr Green, there is this clamour to devalue?

Yes – ten of your British pounds.

So if someone is seeking to diminish the value of the goods, or even eliminate it, then we are looking at a very Small Claim indeed!

However Mr Green clearly does not believe that these assets are worth only Ten Pounds. He believes that they are worth millions, and indeed when they are all taken into account, they undoubtedly are. If Mr Green pulls off a fantastic business deal whereby he buys millions of pounds of assets, for the price of two Broxi Burgers, then he can only be entitled to acclaim and praise, can’t he?

Well, that is the normal situation, and, as long as there is nothing nefarious or underhand, and there is no such suggestion here, the courts would not intervene to protect a business from a bad deal.

However, this was not the normal situation. The sale was carried out by Duff & Phelps, administrators of Rangers FC PC (as it then was). Their primary responsibility was to the creditors. Quite how the sale of millions of pounds of assets for TEN POUNDS satisfies that obligation I do not know, but I am not wise in these matters clearly.

For now I am ignoring the issue of the heritable assets, valued in the last accounts at over £100 million, and sold, unencumbered by debt, for £1.5 million!

Why is this of importance?

We come back to the phrase “gratuitous alienation”. A liquidator, as BDO will soon become in relation to oldco, can challenge any transfer of the assets of the now liquidate company. It is then for the purchaser to establish that the sale was for “adequate consideration”.

Section 242 of the Insolvency Act 1986 reads:-

(1) Where this subsection applies and—

(a) the winding up of a company has commenced, an alienation by the company is challengeable by —

(ii) the liquidator; …

(2) Subsection (1) applies where—

(a) by the alienation … any part of the company’s property is transferred or any claim or right of the company is discharged or renounced…

(4) On a challenge being brought under subsection (1), the court shall grant decree of reduction or for such restoration of property to the company’s assets or other redress as may be appropriate; but the court shall not grant such a decree if the person seeking to uphold the alienation establishes—

(a) that immediately, or at any other time, after the alienation the company’s assets were greater than its liabilities, or

(b) that the alienation was made for adequate consideration …

Provided that this subsection is without prejudice to any right or interest acquired in good faith and for value from or through the transferee in the alienation.

In Lafferty Construction Ltd v McCombe 1994 S.L.T. 858 Lord Cullen considered the application of Section 242.

“In considering whether alienation was made for “adequate consideration”, I do not take the view that it is necessary for the defender to establish that the consideration for the alienation was the best which could have been obtained in the circumstances. On the other hand the expression “adequate” implies the application of an objective standpoint. The consideration should be not less than would reasonably be expected in the circumstances, assuming that persons in the position of the parties were acting in good faith and at arms length from each other. In the present case the defender, apart from the bare statement that adequate consideration was given for the payment and delivery has made no attempt to place any quantification, however broad, against any of the possible considerations. …

As I have already noted the defender’s argument was that it was enough for her to rely on the fact that the parties acted at arms length and that there was no suggestion of fraud, dishonesty or connivance. I observe in passing that the defender’s pleadings do not in terms rely on these matters. However, the more fundamental objection to this approach is that it seems to me to fail to address the need to establish that the consideration was, in an objective sense, adequate. The defender’s averments, if proved, would in my view not be sufficient to enable the court to determine that the payment and delivery were for adequate consideration.”

Previously Mr Ahmad, the director of Sevco, said that, on a bad day, the company was worth £50 million.

Now we have the CEO threatening hell, fore and damnation on anyone seeking to reduce the value of the assets.

What response is Mr Green going to give when BDO write to Green’s company asking for return of the assets, or for Sevco to pay “adequate consideration” to retain them? It seems hard to see how he can proclaim, on one hand, the value of the assets, whilst on the other state that an “adequate” price was paid.

And, in the event that the liquidators take the matter to court, it is not for BDO to show that the price paid was inadequate, but for Sevco to show that it was. As matters stand the first two witnesses for the liquidators will be Mr Green and Mr Ahmad!

So the choice for Mr Green is quite simple – either ten pounds was an adequate price for all these assets, or they are worth millions more, and Sevco needs to pay the liquidators an “adequate” price for them. Mr Green – what’s it going to be?

Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Administration, Charles Green, Insolvency Act 1986, Rangers

153 responses to “Charles Green – The Value of the Assets of Rangers FC – Pennies or Millions of Pounds?

  1. AB

    A question for you Paul, if a little out of context…

    why was the Celtic EBT not “financial doping”?

    • mick

      @ab your deluded

      • AB

        Can you answer the question Mick?

        Or are you just the resident ‘enforcer’ 😀

        • mick

          first and foremost am not an enforcer 1 player with a ebt when he signed your straw clutching and deluding the facts we sorted it out via the law yous never yous used ebts ilegally and now its time to pay the price yous are spitting the dummy and no matter what yous say the law will prevail simple as that ab you have been spoiling the debate all week with deluded comments

          • AB

            I appreciate it was only one player, and the matter was later settled with HMRC.

            But that doesn’t answer the question..

            Was Celtic’s EBT “financial doping”?

            • mick

              no was not as it was when he was at borgh he signed it and celtics lawyers thought it strange and fixed it ebts are legal rfc operated out side the ebt laws that the issue and the ebts are not the issue for now its the deal and side letters and the criminality surrounding them both so stick that in your pipe ab and stop drivialing

            • carlislecelt

              How desperate are you bunch. Cannot wait until you pay up and titles being stripped will be a good starter. Cheating trash!

            • john

              celtic did not pay the player through an ebt whilst he played or was part of the club. when his contract was terminated with 1 year to run this early termination payment was paid into his own ebt. tax was paid, no second contracts no rule breaking. but its pointless pointing out the facts as i am sure more innuendo will quickly be forthcoming….

            • AB

              Why did Celtic pay money into an EBT, which is designed to avoid tax, if you are now saying they paid tax on it?

            • AB

              “cheating trash”

              Not as bad as harbouring kiddy-fiddlers though?

              If you insist on lowering the tone with language like that, I can play that game too 😉

            • Thomas

              You are stupid.
              The end.

            • carl31

              No, it wasn’t.
              Celtic are innocent of any wrongdoing in this regard. Authorities (tax and football) are satisfied of that.

              If you think different, then state your case. Ive stated the current case – you show otherwise if you can. Lets see it.

            • jimbo

              AB are you a DELETED what on earth is wrong with you?
              you certainly need help, you are a DELETED, no doubt there!

          • ecojon


            What an odious creep you actually are and you obviously have serious problems and issues and I would recommend you seek help to see if the damage can be repaired.

            • AB

              The kiddy-fiddler stuff always brings the toys out of the pram for Celtic fans.

              They’ll spend all day turning on the sanctimony whilst obsessing about Rangers failings, but when a wee chapter of their own history is recalled, the laughing stops and the nastiness comes out.

    • mcfc

      AB,, why don’t you set up your own blog to discuss these things in depth. You could call it “Random Thoughts about Rangers” or maybe just “Random Thoughts”

    • easyJambo

      AB – I can answer that, in part, from documents in the public domain, i.e. Celtic’s accounts.

      It has been variously reported that Juninho’s EBT came with him from Middlesborough, or was paid via a new Celtic EBT, that it was a an end of contract payment.

      From the official accounts, I think we can rule out that he brought it with him. Celtic’s accounts for 2004/05 show an EBT contribution of £765K along with a statement “The Celtic plc Employee Benefit Trust was established during the year to provide benefits to certain employees, former employees or their families or any charity. Payments to the Trust are charged to the Group Profit and Loss Account in the year incurred.”

      The following year’s accounts show an EBT contribution of £0 and are accompanied with the statement ” The Celtic plc Employee Benefit Trust was established during 2005 to provide benefi ts to certain employees, former employees or their families or any charity. Payments to the Trust are charged to the Group Profit and Loss Account in the year incurred.”

      There is no mention of EBT’s in future years so I think it is safe to assume that only one player benfited. The mention of it being set up in 2005 is quite important, as it suggests that when Juninho joined Celtic in 2004 he was employed under a standard contract with tax and NIC paid as normal by the club. The 2005 date is therefore consistent with it only being used to receive the payment due for early termination of the contract as he left in April of that year. The EBT was certainly tax efficient for both the player and the club, although we know that Celtic subsequently paid the tax/nic that they, or HMRC, felt was due.

      It was not financial doping as Celtic did not receive any financial benefit while Juninho was a player at the club. The early termination of the contract was also at a cost to Celtic as they were forced to make the payment early, rather than continue to pay out the same amount total to the player and HMRC weekly or monthly for the remainder of his contract.

      The only benefit that Celtic would have had was around £85K in Employer’s NIC contributions that they held onto between April 2005 and the point in 2008(?) when the club settled with HMRC. Indeed if Celtic ultimately paid the tax on behalf of Juninho on 2008, they would in fact be out of pocket to the tune of approx £300K, that being the tax due on the £765K which should have come from player’s earnings but was pocketed by Juninho in full. i.e. Celtic have effectively doubled their employment costs. It’s not a very efficient way of financial doping if you end up paying double the value of the tax.

      • Thank for that easyJambo – excellent info
        Over to you AB…

      • AB

        So it was an attempt at “financial doping”, but they paid the tax on it at a later date when asked?

        • mcfc

          If Celtic did break SFA/SPL rules on EBTs for 1 player for 1 season would that make you feel better about Rangers allegedly doing the same for 53 players and 20 staff over 10 seasons ?

          What is your point man – or are you entirely pointless ?

          • AB

            Just establishing whether Celtic were also guilty of “financial doping”, even if it was less than Rangers.

            If so, it appears an interesting precedent is being set that its perfectly ok to engage in “financial doping”, as long it’s only £765000 going into the EBT, and you pay up at a later date.

            • mcfc

              Well, HMRC are happy and the SPL are happy. So we can conclude that if something that didn’t happen had happened then that would be an interesting precedent for something orders of magnitude larger and entirely different that is likely to happen.

              I think you win – it never occurred to me that Münchhausen Trilemma.applied.

              But, just one question – where do all the calculators go?

            • AB

              I don’t read any conclusions about Celtic impropriety from the fact “the SPL are happy”.

              We all know Celtic know hold all the cards, if not all the strings, in that organisation.

              The fact is they ran an EBT – a tax dodging scheme.

              It was financial doping, regardless what actions they took at a later time to make amends.

              The fact they were able to run a tax dodging scheme to pay a player and yet no rules were broken leaves the moral grounding for this investigation highly suspect.

              After all, if Rangers had taken a leaf out of Celtic’s book in how to run EBTs, they’d be home and dry.

            • Shameless tripping in the guise of whataboutery. Your question has been answered. By a jambo no less. No dual contract, no benefit to Celtic, quite the reverse in fact. all due taxes paid. Hmrc, spl satisfied. Are any of the above applicable down Ibrox way?

            • gogogo


              if we give you that celtic were party to financial doping of 1 player, that player did not play any games when the doping in effect, hence spl have no issue, and tax fully paid so hmrc no issue…. whats your point?

              hmrc have issue with gers not paying tax, and spl have prima facia evidence that players played games when dual contracts may have been in place.

              with celtic case no case to answer, hence no further action…. with gers this case continues as a case does exist and answers are allowed fron oldco and newco… for gers can show no wrongdoing and escape punishments in innocent.

            • Brian J

              The use of EBTs is not and never has been the problem ya eejit!
              EBTs are perfectly legal. The problem was the misuse, even abuse of EBTs.of which it seems there is ample documentary proof of under SDM at Ibrox. Using an EBT and settling any tax liability with HMRC is entirely proper and attracts no sanction from the tax authorities. Using an EBT for an individual who is no longer registered or under contract to play for the club rules out any dual contract issues which might attract sanction from the SPL. Perhaps that answers your question… Celtic are not guilty of financial doping at all, never mind to a lesser degree than Rangers. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

        • john

          i think your slur several posts above should have you banned from here. you seem to have no mental capacity to understand basic facts and humanity. people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. you are a disgusting reprobate .

        • AB – Please can you have the courtesy to read answers to your own questions before just repeating the same question. As easyJambo points out it was not financial doping. Celtic inherited the Juninho EBT scheme that was shown to cost them money by way of them correcting it – and they recorded all the information completely transparently on their accounts.Hardly financial doping, as the only person who benefited seems to have been Juninho.

          Compare this to Rangers/MIM which used the EBT scheme extensively – for many dozens of employees (and yet still ran them incorrectly) – and failed to properly record them in the accounts. Indeed, the only reason their operation was uncovered was in large part due to the investigative work done by internet ‘bampots’ – one of whom has an excellent book on the subject that I’m sure you’ll find very interesting to read.

          The fact that it took such moves to uncover the (incorrect) use of EBTs at Ibrox, and that they were not fully and transparently shown in the Rangers accounts, would imply that the management knew that such ‘financial doping’ was going on. In comparison, at Celtic it was just the continuation of an already set-up payment scheme that the club’s accountants rectified through its proper business management – quite plainly NOT financial doping….


          Now, a question for you, AB, if it is a little ‘out of context’ from your train of thought: what are your views, if any, on Paul’s analysis in this post and the one preceding it?

          • AB

            I’m not interested in the speculations of Celtic fans on a bloke they have ulterior motives for seeking to discredit.

            Oh sorry, “Albion Rovers fan”. 😀

            If Green turns out to be another Whyte, then Rangers fans will be left picking up the pieces again for a situation not of their doing – and the rest of Scottish football will line up to take a kick in the process.

            But Rangers will return, as strong as ever, because the love for the club runs too deep, as the outstanding turnout from supporters this season has proved.

            140 years at the top leaves a few noses out of joint. I personally have little time for those fellow Bears who bleat about the hatred aimed at our club. It comes with the territory.

            • Really feel sorry for you son

            • For someone who is not interested in speculations of Celtic fans, you spend a lot of time engaging with them, or else trying to wind them up.

              I can’t understand your “ulterior motive” point either.

              If a new buyer for Celtic appeared now the resources are there for people to look at their backgrounds. Celtic fans would do so as would others.

              You can’t go arond talking about your mighty Glasgow Rangers and then get annoyed when people pay attention to the shenanigans alleged there.

              And this is the biggest sporting insolvency in UK history accirding to the US website of a worldwide blue-chip accountancy firm.

              And as for digs about the Rovers…

              Can’t you and your fellows accept that not being a fan of Rangers does not make one a Celtic die hard? There are 42 clubs in Scotland.

              Frankly your attitude symbolises the “us against the world” view from Ibrox, and why I have not met a single neutral who would take Rangers side.

              Finally, don’t come into someone’s house to insult them – it’s not courteous.

            • Mikey

              AB, you truly are a richardhead!

        • Thomas

          AB, no name no facts no club.
          No history no-one gives a shit.
          Bye sucker! Eat my fiver!

        • carl31

          No it wasn’t.

    • Ian403

      Let me see!

      The EBT was applied within the rules as they existed.
      (Is this not a mantra of the ex RFC(IA), now Sevco aka THE Rangers supporters, that properly applied EBT’s are not iilegal)
      The Celtic EBT was within the contract, no side letter, no exta payment outwith the contract & was concluded in a proper fashion..
      Most importantly, the Celtic EBT was thought to be of dubious standing ,according to current HMRC rules, by Brian Quinn, Economist, ex Senior Bank of England Official & then Chairman of Celtic…. SO CELTIC PAID THE TAX. which HMRC felt was due.
      How does this compare in any way with the barrow boy antics of Minty Moonbeams?
      RFC & Arsenal had EBT’s, HMRC outlined to both of these clubs their calculation of tax due.

      Arsenal sat down with HMRC & concluded an agreement, entered this liability into their accounts & paid it.
      RFC , in their arrogance, ignored the HMRC tax demand, made no provision to meet any liabily & continued to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND money they DID NOT HAVE. If they had acted in a responsible manner & made provision for the tax bill it would have been circa £26M but hey ,that was not the Minty way!
      Can you tell me why you think that a transaction, tax fully paid, is financial doping, yet the non payment of tax & creditors by RFC(IA) , which led to that club’s demise,is somehow not their fault?

      • ecojon


        So in reality it was all the fault of HMRC that Rangers got into this mess because if they had stopped DM sooner the great club would have steamrollered on. Indeed having conquered earth they may have been playing football on Mars before Roy of the Rover landed.

    • Thomas

      Because the football authority say Celtic payed all tax and provided details to same.
      Your team didn’t thats why Scottish Teams call Rangers cheats, and the clubs gone, like Gretna and Third Lanark.

    • hancock

      we paid the tax on it =P

  2. mick

    great article paul its a undervale sale simple as that the price highlights there whytes mates ,the stock was sold for a pound weres all the stock they bought 900,000 spend 300,000 brought in( piegate )it is well sad that such a high profile case like this can produce such a stink its shoocking to say the least and criminal the phisical and mental element is well there for all the nation to see a just hope bdo have the bottle to deal with it in the right manner “gratuitous alienation”should be the only lawfull outcome anything else is a mockery of scots coperate law

    • Thanks for reminding us of Piegate mick. I would imagine that ‘gratuitous alienation’ is only one of the terms we’ll be hearing more of when BDO finally get to work (and what in god’s name is keeping them?). ‘Fraud’, ‘consipracy’ and just plain ‘cooking the books’ may well figure in the headlines once they get going. I trust D&P has some malpractice insurance…

  3. mick

    “50mil on a bad day” the ink on the 5.5mil contract was not even dry when they said that at ibrokes that night unreal this can happen in full frontial view of the nations media and no questions asked

  4. stewart

    I could be wrong AB but I would guess as Celtic didn’t use the promise of tax free earnings via an EBT scheme to attract juninho to in the first place, then the fact that Celtic paid the tax due on any payments they made to juninho would be just 2 reasons why it wasn’t financial doping, the third and probably clearest reason why Celtic’s EBT wasn’t financial doping is the fact that HMRC aren’t chasing Celtic for millions in unpaid tax, unlike they did with Rangers due their EBT scheme.

    Just to clarify, i’m not a Celtc supporter, but a can see a world of difference between the use and misuse of the EBTs by the old firm teams. Rangers were given the opportunity to wipe the slate clean when HMRC first contacted them about tax they felt they were due regards Rangers misuse of EBTs, Rangers decided to appeal against the big tax case, an event that ultimately led to Murray having to sell to Whyte, and we all know what happened next. As far as i’m aware HMRC are happy that Celtic have paid all tax due and as such can’t be guilty of financial doping.

    Or is that simplifying it to much?

    • AB

      If Celtic made up for the £765000 they paid into the EBT at a later date by paying the tax, does that not mean that the initial payment into the EBT was “financial doping” at the time it happened?

      • mick

        your deluded ab your banging on like jabba or chico easyjambos well clued up to it and answered your question with great indepth Analyze so why the constant delutional stance whats the point

        • AB

          Before they eventually played ball with HMRC and paid the tax due,

          was Celtic’s EBT “financial doping”?

          • George Orange


            Simples! Answer given, job done, now try to learn how to behave as a civilised human being, you…poor of thinking human being

          • p groom

            come on people . you are beginning to look silly. AB has a valid point in my view. celtic only paid up after they were found out and in the intervening period withheld tax for 3 years. in the current idiom thats financial doping. what else would you call it? memory loss? sure they put things right later ( but only because they had to..). in the same way as rangers MAY have to, if found guilty, in which case we will all be happy to say there was no financial doping by rangers either, won’t we ?

            • Mikey

              Hi P.

              Ab may have a valid point of view, but is a proven incorrect one, and is also put in an obnoxious way.

              Celtic’s EBT has been investigated by the SPL and they deem it ok. AB doesn’t like the SPL therefore he won’t accept that because “the SPL are biased, bigoted and haters against Rangers”. But Celtic and Rangers’ EBT’s are different animals. Celtic appear to have taken on a commitment to pay this from his previous club, and the EBT was set up to pay ONE player AFTER he left their employment, to pay off the remainder of his contract. The tax was later paid once HMRC thought tax was due and then discussed it with Celtic and it was agreed tax was due as it was a part of his wages. It does not appear there was a second contract in place, because Celtic paid off his contract using a EBT, therefore the payment is likely to have been reported to the SPL / SFA as part of the player’s contract.

              Now, AB will say, show him the proof, and the fact is I can’t because I am not a member of the SPL and don’t have access to their investigation. But, unlike AB, I don’t believe the SPL are bigoted / biased / lying haters, just incompetent.

              You are correct in saying Rangers may still be found innocent by the EBT investigation, despite there being a prima facie case to answer.

              In which case, congratulations Rangers – that only leaves the BDO liquidation investigation, which will have serious questions to ask about the sale of assets.

      • ecojon


        You are making a fool of yourself but that’s your problem. If you think there’s anything untoward with a EBT and Celtic then it is your duty as an upright citizen to report it to HMRC – you know that duty of course because Rangers were great observers of it NOT.

        And I assume Green accepts the SPL position on the matter as he hasn’t stuck a compaint in as far as I am aware and as he complains about everything else I’m sure he would about this if he thought there was anything to pin Celtic on.

        So, if it’s good enough for Green it’s good enough for me 🙂

        Has he sorted out the Ibrox seating yet and fired his Head of Security 🙂

        Grow Up!

        • mick

          @ecojon pure denial classic simptom of the delutional disorder picked up via msm telling him lies for 20 years

        • AB

          My questioning was simple enough whether Celtic’s EBT was “financial doping” or not. I got some interesting answers.

          It seems from your needlessly hostile post that your still a little sensitive about my thumbs-down ‘snoozefest’ review I gave your efforts

          Really, if you’re going to post to a public forum, you need to be a little more thick-skinned!

          Or was it just general bigotry? My mistake, if so. 🙂

          • GWG

            ha ha ha
            that’s one of my masterpieces~~~
            Ta very much

          • George Orange

            Honestly miss / mrs / madam, (because you’re obviously not a bloke with such dodgy thinking as you display on this blog – joke!), you’re question was well answered by easyJambo and yet you carried on with but why?, but why daddy? why? Daddy who gave me yet another answer, but all I’m really here to do is annoy you, so I haven’t actually read easyJambo’s answer or any other because I already know the answer and it’s because you’re bigoted – because you love my sister Celtic more than me! Bwah! Bwah! Bwah!

            Trust me AB, our dear boy / girl / uni-gender entity easyJambo doesn’t love you more than your sister Celtic – in fact his / it’s sister Hibernia, says him (probably) and his (with any luck) mates likes you more than they like her, yet still they both think you are behaving like a spoilt wee child who got all the cake for years but isn’t getting her fair share now, so she’ll scream and scweam and scream.

            Personally, getting really fed up of the obvious RM posters coming on here to offer not one one bit of wisdom or proper argument, but rather a point of view straight out of RM’s mouth, with paranoia seeping out of every word.

            At least here I can’t negative rep you ( that’s a bad thing on RM!).

          • Gypsybhoy

            I suggest you go and spend some time investigating whether or not it was ‘financial doping’ – for your own sanity. Please remember that you are not in a playground.

            The art of debate does not include antagonistically repeating the same question over and over even when provided with an answer. If the answer is not to your personal satisfaction then go and research and come back to us.

            However, I do not believe that your intention was to ask a simple question. Especially when you use an abhorrent statement like “harbouring kiddy-fiddlers”. This, in effect, shows your true nature for what it is. I do not wish to disrespect the dead but Ibrox could also be referred to as a “harbourer” of “kiddy-fiddlers” to put it in your uncouth language – if you are a Rangers fan then you’ll know of whom I refer.

            You, in effect, represent the microcosm I believe of the attitudes, mind set, and arrogance of the wider social group of which you are part of, including Brother Alistair.

            It amazes me in an anthropological sense how your “hive mind” works and how easily manipulated vast sections of you are. It is rather interesting though and what we are witnessing/about to witness are the death throes of a culture steeped in hatred for anything/anyone that is not them. You have destroyed yourselves…you just don’t know it yet.

      • GWG

        Tiresome …… {yawn}
        waste of time try to educate you with FACTS!!
        away tae yer bed

  5. Nobody Knows

    A tenner for the titles… a 19p value for each league championship won. At least the value of each title will increase as titles are removed. (- ;

  6. Alex Doherty

    Ah indeed this can happen when no one thinks the nations media got it wrong when Heath Maggie and Blair led them to WAR on the WORLD stage long live the lies for one time they where the TRUTH

  7. mick

    well said alex the media have to have a better charter and serve the people not the politicians that are guilty of sending young men and women to there needless death and yousing the media to justifie it

  8. mcfc

    Rangers seem to expect, from long experience, that people, the press and official bodies will accept their contorted logic without question on things like EBT.

    CG has taken this to a new level and I’m sure everyone around him is nodding enthusiastically.

    But the grown-ups are coming – BDO, HMRC, TTF, Mr Nimmo-Smith and probably the SFO. They are going to tear their bollox logic to shreds before breakfast. And I think the SFA/SPL/SFL know they need to show some backbone PDQ or they’ll get shredded too.

    So, Mr Green, what do you understand by the term gratuitous alienation ?

  9. Dunman

    Are you able to provide any probability of BDO going down this route with Sevco so “mature” and trail of assets moved on (players sold?)

  10. mick

    @mcfc scotland has stoodstill while all this has happened and said to its self no more the whole country are sick of the bullying and threats and just want a tesco built at it they are the most tainted team on earth and a blacksheep any were they go its time for the above groups you mentioned to step in and put them in there place the dusk bin am thinking

  11. mick

    BDO will not be appointed liquidator until Lord Hodge releases RFC from administration.

    RFC not yet released from administration as the Court is concerned that Duff and Duffer may have been naughty boys – conflict of interest.
    gratuitous alienation via lord hodge maybe or will he advise bdo ????

  12. JimBhoy

    One thing to say: Luke Kelly rocks… My old proddie pal Jono Henderson ( I so miss ya pal) god rest his soul put me on to him… Not much to do with this post, just thought I’d say…. All the best to all football fans thru the weekend. Have a safe and awesome weekend all….!!!!!!

  13. JimBhoy

    I hope the Rangers get out this shit a better organisation.

  14. mick

    @jim a dont a want just 1 big team in glasgow the country would benifit more via a east coast team being the number 2 or 1 in future if they get the luck of the bounce what has happened during the last 15 years or so galvanizies my stance they would only do it agian and they killed the new firm via financial doping so glasgow should not be allowed to have the same power over our sport agian ,the fact the sfa are covering things up to suit and have being doing so for years also brings to light should glasgow be allowed to be the soccer base of scotland via hampden rfc and the sfa have killed our game and its time for academic changes to restore faith in the countrys national game not just everything revolving around sevco

    • George Orange

      Mick, I apologise if I’ve ever said a bad word about your grammar or pie counting habits – bur I adore you for saying Glasgow should not be the hub of Scottish football and an East Coast club should come closer to the fore. (That’s if I’ve understood your dodgy grammatical skills well enough)

      As an arab, it’s been heartbreaking over the years to see both Celtic and Rangers take away promising players from our developing team who then wouldn’t be played (exceptions such as Barry Robson notwithstanding), whilst United would have to start from a lower point and build again.

      United have had a good 4 or 5 seasons now, yet each year they have had to lose 3 to 5 first team players on free’s or transfers.

      All that happens is that a weaker team to the old “Old Firm” would become weaker and not grow and become more competitive, but instead the league became weaker as the cream of players either rose to the top (Celtic / Rangers) or left Scotland entirely to disappear in the mediocre ranks of the English sub-Premier divisions.

      Teams like United and Motherwell and Hearts have shown they can compete to make individual games more competitive, but the league as a whole has seen rubbish quality, with many Scottish football fans not caring who won, as it would either be Rangers or Celtic. Now one of those two is away on a long holiday, we should look at a way of making the Scottish football entertainment better as well as a long term view of making Scottish football inter-nationally better.

      I doubt any changes needed would suit Celtic in the short term, but as an enjoyable spectacle and Scottish and Celtic international hopes go, they would hopefully please the country and help a cash strapped Celtic too.

      • mick

        @George Orange after whats happened with the sfa and rfc a feel its time to sell hampden and move the national team east to avoid chosy relationships happening in future most scotland fans travel miles so if it was in fife it would be central for the whole country and after turnbull hutton and his like popping up a think it would go well sfa at hampden are letting the game down and lack vision

        • George Orange

          mick – I can’t believe I’m agreeing with you twice in one day, but there are times when the SFA play games at Hampden they should be played more locally. There have been a few semi-finals recently which had no business being at Hampden, given the participants, but as a supporter who only gets a few chances to go to Hampden for finals, the rare special occasions, which should rightly be held at the national stadium, which, let us remind ourselves, has done nothing wrong!

          Personally though I thought the Scottish Cup final Hearts v Hibs should have been at Murrayfield – why make two Edinburgh clubs go to Glasgow when a great stadium is on their doorstep.

          Thinking about it mick, maybe East Coast finals ought to be at Murrayfield: I hate it when people make me think!!! Cheers mick!

          • mick

            murryfield is spot on for it george theres no reason other than sfa greed for not doing this if it makes it a shorter safer journey for the fans then it should happen what the east coast fans need is a bigger voice now we know that the sfa are all crooks its up to the rest of scotland to take away there desision making the sfa and rfc killed the newfirm via doping its sick when you look at aberdeen and utd euro champions in the 80s and scotland was good then it would only be fitting to have the east teams get the chance to sort things ,the national team is run by west coast funny handshakers hell bent on profit for there own so its time to bring it out in the open and some sort of justice for the newfirm is due via reliseing decisition making

  15. Duplesis


    An interesting article – a couple of points though:

    I believe it is no longer necessary for the Pursuer to establish a pecuniary interest when a member or ex member sues – Lennox v Scottish Branch of the British Show Jumping Association 1996 SLT 353 (albeit obiter), so the actual value of the honours Green wishes to protect is unlikely to be particularly relevant.

    (That said, there may be other arguments about title and interest to sue, since Lennox deals with the situation where a member has left, but the matter the member complained of happened whilst he was still a member – in the RFC case, the matter complained of would have happened after the member left, i.e. the EBT panel decision.)

    As to the gratuitous alienation argument, as I’ve mentioned before, the case you refer to doesn’t deal with the situation where an alienation is made by an administrator (who is of course under supervision of the Court) and whose actions can be challenged by the creditors under para 74 of Schd B1. Is the case apt to cover this situation?

    • ecojon


      I actually think the matter viz using players with side contracts (if proven) happened while they were still members.

      The fact that the investigation takes place after their membership I don’t see as relevant.

      • Duplesis


        I’m talking about RFC’s title and interest to challenge the SPL panel decision in Court, not the SPL’s title and interest to investigate the EBT position. I’m not suggesting the SPL can’t investigate, I’m suggesting RFC may not have title and interest to challenge the decision following that investigation as that decision will be made after RFC ceased to be a member of the SPL.

      • ecojon


        Minor emergency had to leave so I’ll finish.

        My take on what Paul was actually saying was that the titles had negligible value in any case and it was Green that appeared to be talking up their value.

        The other point about whether the behaviour or investigation is what sets the time frame I think was aptly demonstrated by Charlies old club in Sheffield.

        The Tevez incident took place while they were in the Premiership but the various tribunals and legal actions took place after they were relegated and out of the Premiership and they eventually won their case.

        • Duplesis


          I’d forgotten about the Tevez case, although it was under English law of course.

          I can’t say I recall the exact ins and outs of the case, but I’ve been trying to check what happened. Based on the old newspaper articles I’ve found, it seems this was an FA arbitration between Sheffield United and West Ham rather than an action by Sheffield against the league though. There was some suggestion action against league might follow, but I don’t know if it did.

          There was a PL commission which decided to fine West Ham rather than dock points – I’m not clear if the commission took place before or after Sheffield technically ceased to be members of the league, nor whether that commission’s decision was challenged in Court by Sheffield.

          The title and interest point might be specific to Scots Law, though. In fairness the Scottish cases do seem to be following a trend towards relaxation of what a member or ex member has to establish for title and interest, so it may ultimately not be an issue.

          • ecojon


            There were some bits of the case that went before the English courts but in the main it was dealt with be football tribunal rules – don’t now remember if it was FA or Premiership or a mix. And the Appeal Tribunal in Switzerland were also in on the action.

  16. Angus

    AB … easyJambo explains it all, mate. Your “financial doping” buzzword – that I assume you picked up over at RM or FF without fully understanding its meaning – only applies to one (ex)Club in Scotland at the moment.

    I know there are a lot of words and punctuation and stuff in eJ’s post, which may be hard going for you – but I note you seem to have skipped it (going by the lack of reply) to reply to someone else further down on a similar subject, thus depriving yourself of the facts of the matter.

    Do yourself a favour – read easyJambo’s post before you increase the appearance of your foolishness any further.

  17. ecojon


    I used to think that they might but I’m afraid I think the games a bogey – they seem to be getting more bitter by the day. Their problem seems to be that they can’t even discuss possible problems with Green’s masterplan in case the whole fabric of their closed world falls apart. I think they are actually terrified because deep-down they realise what thin ice they are skating on as did the Sheffield Blades before them – at least they stood up to Green and had a carpark demo, according to their fansites, and forced him out.

    This lot are terrified that they are left without a Lord & Master.

    • Mikey


      whilst I understand completely your comments, I don’t think it is helpful to add at the end the crack about not knowing what they’d do without a Lord & Master, as it will only antagonise ‘them’ further and see this site not as a Scottish wide blog, but as a blog for Rangers hating Celtic fans.

      We should be able to criticise and tell ‘them’ off for poor posts, but they are our fellow Scots and we should not patronise, but rather teach the truth to ‘them’

      • ecojon


        I’m not actually sure that ‘they’ regard themselves as fellow Scots. If they do regard themselves as Scots it would appear to me that they view themself as a strictly compartmental bit of Scotland with attitudes and values different from the majority.

        For the vast majority of the ones who are bitter tio the core there is no education to be done. They will slowly die out as society keeps advancing and leaves them further behind and more isolated.

        I am also an optimist and believe that some can change but that has to come from within – they have to educate themselves and until that first sterp is taken they cannot be ‘educated’ from outsiders as that is viewed as an attack on them as a group and on the group beliefs.

        My ‘Lord & Master’ comment may have eluded you but it harps back to a post on here about the seeming need for Rangers fans to have a ‘strong leader’ and should really be viewed in that context.

        And I have to say that they DO see this site as a Celtic dominated Rangers-hating one. They don’t actually believe that there are posters from other teams and even if they accept that then these posters are onlty ‘taigs’ anyway.

        And as to antagonising them further I would say that that is an impossibility – do you even read on their sites what they have to say about the ‘handwringers’ in their own support – that is a very illuminating peek into their psyche and mindset.

        • Mikey

          Ecojon, thanks for illuminating me on your Lord and Master comment. I did not see that post of yours.

          As for their sites, I’ve looked at RM and I have been gobsmacked by the rabid hatred shown there, as well as the complete intolerance for anyone who strays from the party line. Paul’s bolg on thumbs up / thumbs down seems to go to another level on that site with their Pavlovian response to their reps. I have to admit to amusing myself one night by registering and giving some of the worst commenter negative reps and those who were standing up to them the thumbs up and was stunned at the vitriol directed my way both from those I gave the thumbs down and also the comments directed my way for supporting a different opinion.

          However, I have to hope that they are the vocal, bigoted, uncouth minority. Even if they’re not the minority I can’t make myself stoop to their level and treat them as anything other than equal beings. It’s just such a shame that they appear to have an unreasoning side which precludes discussion or behaving with common decency. The ridiculous “kiddy-fiddlers” comment elsewhere in this post one of the more hateful examples.

  18. mick

    @ecojon heres a look at a comment from a blades fanzine site

    Charles Green was the Chief Executive when McDonald was in charge. He is a very controversial figure and not liked by many United fans. He is a lad from Doncaster that has made a lot of money from deals that many might claim were not legitimate. The majority of these he has done working for Mike McDonald.

    The infamous incident that Green oversaw was selling Fjortoft and Deane in the same day. All his good work before that (signing Della’s and Borbokis etc) was undone when he sold our 2 best players. It seems he had overspent, by brining in the Greek due and offering big contracts to Deane etc and then panicked. It is a real shame, as we’d assembled a good team (Kelly/Tracey, Quinn, Borbokis, Marker, Ward, Patterson, Deane and Fjortoft) and he ended our promotion chances in one foul swoop. Realistically we had been struggling since McGraph was injured and then Whitehouse, but selling 2 goal machines on the same day was nothing short of criminal.

    I know someone quite close to owd Charlie boy and I have it on good authority that he made a lot of money from SUFC. He amassed a substantial sum when we were floated on the stock exchange and I think he got a bit pay out at the end. Green reckoned he was the fall guy and he was just doing what McDonald told him, but I just do not buy it. I am not sure there was any malice in his decisions, just greed and extremely poor judgement.

    I remember the cries of ‘Charles Green, you’ve fucked up our team’ ringing round BDTBL in 1998 and also a car park protest. I despise the guy, but no more so than Trevor Birch. Both blagger idiots that got exposed when they were clearly out of their depth when facing difficult circumstances. Taking hefty salaries whilst making very poor decisions and then crippling United for years to come.I’d like to sit down and have a pint with both of these two (amongst other things) and ask them exactly how they managed to pull the wool over people’s eyes in the first place

    • ecojon


      There is some really interesting stuff on Blades websites about that period when Charlie was there. Don’t know if he made money from his shares as I was thinking of leaving that kind of boring toil till a later date as it can be tedious info to assemble.

      However I saw one Sheffield site that had his pay-off at £100k for less than 18 months I think. You’ve got to rembember that Mike McDonald was with Texas Holdings and they keep popping-up around companies Charlie is involved with and they often have a significant shareholding ie notifiable.

      Another chant and song apparently was: ‘Charlie Green He Sells The Team’. And he wonders why the guys walked on Tupe – they would rather pick where they were going than be sent to Siberia by the mystery investors who actually wield the real power at Rangers.

      • mick

        @ecojon theres a article by gossey on tsfm and he thinks the 12 companys are legs of octypus and when ticktus liqidated they set up these companys to claw the money back it was a great read 4days ago hes a puttet man mostly acting for backers with a crooked streak ticktus whyte d&ps the secret backers the web is closeing and am thinking soon something will pop up what a dont know but it will be comedy gold watching it

  19. mick

    controversial figure
    He is a lad from Doncaster that has made a lot of money from deals that many might claim were not legitimate
    he made a lot of money from SUFC
    greed and extremely poor judgement

    the whole blades fanzine sites are shouting hes a bit of a del bhoy so bdo might have a easy job here south of the border hes known for dodgy deals

  20. mick

    remember the book” fit and proper” lol

  21. Thomas

    Brilliant read, thank you for your time and effort.
    If it’s possible that BDO could ‘reclaim’ Ibrox Stadium, should St Mirren fans be worried?


  22. ecojon


    Is that the Sheffield book doing the expose about Sheffield?

    The Amazon review states: ‘This is the story of a football club that, in the 1990s, harboured the UK’s biggest white-collar fraudster. This same club was almost bought by someone who couldn’t decide whether to be a man or a woman.

    It also had as chairman a man subject to an international arrest warrant, then another chairman who remains to this day a fugitive from the law, who in turn was succeeded by a man with connections to Libyan arms dealers.

    To this ensemble make space for the Gurkha Regiment, Interpol, the ‘Rat Pack’, the Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic, protein-rich algae, a collection of classic motor vehicles, 29,000 piles of dog excrement, a huge Indian city and a tiny Scottish village.

    Based on years of research by its two authors, Fit and Proper? details the history of the boardroom of Sheffield United Football Club, focusing particularly on the foibles of the men who over three decades from 1980 tried, and largely failed, to turn the ‘Blades’ into a profitable business and a successful club.

    Instead, the city that gave the game to the world is home to a club that has now become the footballing arm of an international property development company. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

  23. duggie73

    In the long-run, the financial doping was to the value of £0.00.

    “If Green turns out to be another Whyte, then Rangers fans will be left picking up the pieces again for a situation not of their doing – and the rest of Scottish football will line up to take a kick in the process.”
    Complete inaction (other than on a good day questionning the motivations behind Dermot Desmond’s moustache) in the face of clear and repeated warnings means the situation would be of The Rangers fans’ doing.


    “I have learned from my mistakes, and I’m sure I could repeat them precisely.”- Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling

  24. mick

    @ecojon fit and proper charlie bhoys the main man in it lol if only jabba and chico googled his name they might have seen the carnage he brings lol

  25. mick

    a blades fan some months ago came on the site and mentioned the book a think that was him trying to warn them

  26. ecojon

    Ally McCoist ‘baffled’ by SPL decision not to investigate Celtic’s EBT payment to Juninho

    Poor Ally he must be worrying about ramorrows game too much – it’s away from home isn’t it 🙂

  27. ecojon

    And another one from Ally – delusional I’m afraid and singing from a different song sheet than Green who wants to stay in Div1,

    Ally: We’ve got allies at the top

    Ally McCoist believes many of the Scottish Premier Leagues clubs would be happy to welcome Rangers back once their progression through the Scottish Football League is complete.

    • mick

      thats if they make it out of div3 its a tough league then theres the bdo hmrc ftt the police and a whole load of other hurdles to get over

  28. mick

    Duff & Phelps were appointed by Craig Whyte – they had previously advised Rangers on the sale to Whyte, so they are possibly complicit in the scam to sell everything to Green for £5m. Green is creating a siege mentality and the notion that everyone is out to get Rangers. He needs to get the Rangers support on his side and to create the ‘hard done by’ feeling amongst them all. As a result of this he’s managed to get them to buy season tickets and turn up for matches – but where’s that money going – Ticketus are still involved and want their money back, Close Brothers want their money back and Craig Whyte wants paying for all his troubles.

    Although there was a court hearing and the resulting judgement that said under Scottish law the Ticketus agreement could be deemed invalid, this is no longer the case as the agreement was willingly transferred from old Rangers to Sevco 5088 Ltd, an English company who had bought all the old Rangers assets. So now the agreement is between 2 English companies where it is valid. Sevco 5088 Ltd then transferred some of the assets (but not the Ticketus agreement) to Sevco Scotland Ltd (a Scottish company) who are the new Rangers. There has to be a Scottish company as license holders to play in Scotland – but they now owe Sevco 5088 Ltd for the Ticketus money. That’s why Rangers were briefly known as Sevco 5088 Ltd rather than the sale being directly to Sevco Scotland Ltd.

    So how are they going to pay these people off and still try to run a club whose expenditure still outstrips their income. A share offer! Who’s going to buy the shares – the supporters? What are they going to buy shares in – the Club or the Company (unfortunately the Company, so if that goes bust they’ve lost their money again). How’s Green going to persuade them to invest – increase the siege mentality. He knows the titles will be stripped – but stir enough sh!t about them and declare that you’ll never take away our titles and the supporters think he’s even more of a hero. If the share offer fails, he’ll walk away and they’ll liquidate the company – he’ll say he tried his best but the SFA/SPL had it in for him – it was their fault not his. They’ll eventually sell Ibrox to someone so Ticketus and Close Brothers get their money back – it’s worth more if it can be sold to a football club that will play there, which could be another new incarnation of Rangers or someone buys Cowdenbeath Rangers and relocates them to Ibrox, changes the strip and drops the ‘Cowdenbeath’.

    And Whyte – well his dad still holds the floating charge over the Murray Park training ground which is worth a few bob.

  29. mick

    the above is from
    westham even bang on about him being well unsavoury

  30. Doc

    Mr McConville, I am aware that this is acompletely off topic, could you inform me of what an individuals rights are if they are wrongfully arrested? It would be extremely appreciated

  31. John Burns

    This may be seen as over-simplistic – but surely Duff and Phelps sold to Charles Green for £5.5 million principally to cover their own fees.

    Later with time to deliberate, that figure was broken down and apportioned to all the various assets.

  32. I was wondering how many posts I would get through till one became on-topic to PMcC’s blog. I think I counted 33 – which was Paul’s reminder about House Rules! Thankfully, it developed a bit further down the posts into some sensible argument, whether or not I agree with it.

  33. Semaj68

    Keep up the good work Paul .. Hail Hail

  34. Andrew Keith

    I have really enjoyed reading this and, because I am on the other side of the world right now, I can write this while most of you are asleep, safe in the knowledge that what I am about to say won’t be deemed irrelevant by a cross-posting.

    Firstly, great article Paul. I am sure the well read and cautious men who are looking into this will not be duped, will they?

    The stuff with ‘AB’ earlier was tedious. I have posted before about Celtic fans gloating and Rangers fans notsurrendering through the comments section here. I can only repeat my sentiments from before. You have a whole newspaper and a radio show for that very purpose, please use it.

    On the substantive point of ABs many posts as to whether Celtic’s use of an EBT was financial doping, then the answer is very clearly, yes. Before all you green blooded posters go all Govan on me, let me go further. Celtic used an EBT to make a legitimate payment. They could have made that payment without using an EBT. At the time, HMRC had not yet declared that EBTs were not a legal means of avoiding the immediate payment of income taxes. That is not the same as saying that HMRC had approved EBTs. Celtic thereby sought to make a legitimate payment in an abnormal way because at the time they believed that it would be cheaper for them to do it that way. It might have been harsh to have described their actions at the time as financial doping. Except, by any decent persons standards, trying to avoid paying due taxes on a payment related to a contract of employment is immoral and falls short of the standards we might expect of our sporting institutions (especially one that incessantly, and tiresomely, complains about being treated badly by the authorities).

    That Celtic clearly felt guilty enough about it not to use EBTs for any other payments and, belatedly, really guilty enough to actually pay the tax they had earlier saved is to its credit and mitigates the financial doping charge a wee bit. (even though there is the possibility that they were simply reading the writing that was plastered all over the wall when they made the tax payment).

    Easyjambo dealt with the legal and procedural aspects of the case very well, but financial doping is not a legal term and AB, for all his nosurrenderingness, repeatedly asked a very specific question and deserves a specific answer. Hopefully, I have given him one.

    By the way, I believe that several football clubs in the SPL are also involved in financial doping right now. But that is only because I take a much wider view of what financial doping is than has been used in this discussion so far. Mind you I have UEFA on my side, well, mostly. I would argue that any football club that spends more than it earns from football related income over a reasonable period (3 to 5 years) is likely to be guilty of financial doping. More specifically, any club that is dependent on a rich benefactor (whether an equity shareholder or not) to either guarantee otherwise unaffordable debts or to pay ongoing costs is guilty of financial doping.

    I have watched my team suffer the consequences of this twice and I honestly wouldn’t wish it on anyone. But hiding heads in the sand and acting only when the financial sh*t* actually hits the fan is not enough. It does not take a financial, or any other kind of genius to see the trajectory that some clubs are on. If we act now, we can save some jobs and lots of wee businesses from losses they should not have to suffer. Taking horrible tasting medicine now has got to be better than having large bits amputated, or even having to be put down, later.

  35. AB


    It is of course in your interests to portray yourself as a neutral, but it’s not fooling anyone.

    Yes there are many people who aren’t Rangers fans and do not support Celtic, but IN MY EXPERIENCE there aren’t many football-following West of Scotland catholic’s called “Paul” with a liking for Coatbridge F.C. who do not also have Celtic at their heart/in-built hatred of Rangers. Call it induction.

    I would not dismiss everything you post as nonsense, but a great degree of the material I read on here is baseless speculation on what Green MIGHT do. No evidence he will do it, but let’s just pretend he might.

    Sorry but I don’t see the value in that.

    I came on here to point out a couple of things:
    1. Rangers FC officially still exists, transferred from oldco to newco and formally recognised as the same member club by the SFA.
    2. The side contracts issue is a rules/regulations breach if at all and, especially in light of Celtic getting a proverbial pat on the back for operating their EBT in line with the rules, there is no case for ‘financial doping’ to any extent worthy of diminishing the monumental efforts of players, battling fair and square, on the pitch, over a period of 10 years or so.

    Otherwise I’m entitled to my opinion, usually more respectfully stated than the majority of response I get on here from this “neutral” blog.

    • AB – thanks for finally taking your mask off – you’re just a bigot

      • Paul McGinty


        Quite Right you are entitled to your own opinion – can I advise you that other’s may not share it, as there’s may differ from yours – that’s the way it works
        From my name I am now being labelled by you as a Rangers Hating individual – thanks for that – you have never met me – an opinion formed in ignorance is basically worthless
        When you find the time look up the word schadenfreude – if the shoe was on the other foot ?
        By the way I never attended a Celtic match till I was 21, I currently dont attend Celtic Park, although I am a Season ticket holder and I do enjoy a good game of Cricket – Mmm – I don’t seem to fit your induction plan.

        • AB

          You’re posting to denigrate my tongue-in-cheek “if he’s called Paul he’s probably a Celtic fan” rule of thumb…

          you’re a Celtic fan
          and your name is…

          Do i need to point it out…

          • AB,

            Two Pauls. One “proves” your “rule”. One does not. So what?

            I think it is very sad that your perception seems to be that being a Celtic fan = “in built hatred of Rangers”. I am sure it does apply to. I suspect it doesn’t apply to most. I am sure, or at least I hope, the position is the same with Rangers fans towards Celtic.

            Your casual assumption that being brought up in the Roman Catholic faith in Coatbridge is induction into hatred is offensive on many levels. Even if meant as a flippant comment, it seems in a nutshell to encapsulate a lot of the problems.

            I am off to deal with vital breakfast related and real life matters now – so probably won’t respond immediately to any further comemnts you offer. Rest assured, if I block any comment of yours, I will email you to tell you why.

          • Paul McGinty


            Look up Denigrate in the dictionary – you make a baseless assumption in confering ‘Ranger’s hating’ on anyone with a paricular name and the club they support. I therefore cannot ‘denigrate’ you post – sigh

    • AB,

      Thank you. I am glad to see your powers of mind-reading extend over the internet, and that your detailed scientific survey and analytical processes have proved to you that I am not what I say I am.

      You are free to read here, if you want. You are free to read any website in the world. Please do not upset yourself by continuing to read here if you fail to see any value in that.

      Do not accuse me of hatred. If you can find a single instance of my writing which shows that hatred I will be astonished, as it does not exist.

      You are entitled to your opinion. You do not have the right to voice it here – you have been given the facility to do so. As I said in a post written as you were making this commnet, I have never blocked any commenter and I do not propose to start with you.
      However, you might well find comments in moderation.

      Alternatively, write me a detailed pice analysing and pointing out errors in arguments. Explain how you see Mr Green’s financial plans working. Tell us about his track record which makes you confident he is the right man for your club (although on the day Walter Smith’s bid appeared very few of your fellow fans seemed to think so).

      The offer is there.


      • AB

        As you’ve pointed out, Green and his cohorts bought Rangers for pennies.

        If he chooses to sell his stake in Rangers, it’s fair to assume he’ll hold out for a price more befitting the value of the club and the brand.

        Ergo – he’ll make a lot of money.

        I do not see how the above “business plan” can be dismissed out of hand, indeed it seems the most logical, straight-forward path to follow.

        Funny how it’s not been given much regard by anyone on here!

        • Thank you AB.

          The problem is though that, as I said last night, he needs to have paid “adequate consideration” and if he can quickly turn around and make a big profit, the liquidator will be suggesting that some or all of that profit should be in the hands of the creditors and not Mr Green and his cohorts.

          • AB

            Why bring “quickly” into this?
            In 3 years time Rangers could be back winning the SPL and competing in Europe.

            Would the liquidators have a leg to stand on then?

            Also, I am a little puzzled at this assumption that there is, or should have been, a “reserve” price on Rangers.

            If Green’s payment for the club was the best on offer, is it not an open market where the highest price – however trifling – wins?

            • AB,

              Read my post and the words of Lord Cullen.

              And yes – if Mr Green cannot show he paid “Adequate consideration” the courts have to order the transaction unwound, or for the buyer to pay “adequate consideration”.

              And to Duplesis –

              There is no difference because the sale was made by an administrator. The sale was by the administrator as an agent of the company. Often with these things it can take a liquidator a long time from appointment to sort through the paper trail and find transfers open to challenge. The liquidators can challenge actions of the administrators as agents of the company. Ergo the D&P sale to Sevco can be challenged as an alleged gratuitous alienation.

            • AB

              I have read Cullen’s words and can see this is “one side” of an argument.

              I’d be interested in the other side of the argument.

              If only there was a “scotslawthoughts” blog by someone called “Ross Waddell” or something along those lines (who would OBVIOUSLY be a Rangers fan) 🙂

            • Duplesis


              Thanks for the response.

              I can see that the Act’s provisions on gratuitous alienation are at first glance wide enough to cover a challenge to Administrator’s actings, and I fully appreciate Administrators act as agents of the company when they contract on its behalf.

              What I’m asking though is whether there is case law showing whether the test you refer to in your article is the applicable test where the actings of an administrator are challenged by a liquidator.

              Transactions by Administrators on the face of it are in a different position to other transactions by a company pre liquidation since Administrators are subject to the scrutiny of the court, and of course the creditors have a direct right to challenge the administrator’s actings – which they didn’t exercise in the RFC case. Does the creditors failure bar a challenge on their behalf by the liquidators, for example?

              More generally is there any reported case at all of liquidators challenging the actings of their administrator predecessors, or would this be an entirely novel matter?

    • carl31

      If you come to the discussion with a prior view that the merit of any argument or testimony should be considered with the background of the poster in mind, then you are prejudiced. You will necessarily be pre-judging posts and comments. If your prejudice specifically concerns, or relates to whether ‘your team’ is under criticism, you are also partial and unfair, and if your team is Rangers (you oppose the opinions of Celtic fans – even those who aren’t but you distrustfully deem them to be Celtic fans) and you add that the ‘Catholic’ angle, then you are also a bigot.

      All in one post.

      Have you actually read the post of Mr McConville above? What do you have to say about it? Have you read the contribution of Andrew Keith above? What is your view on it?

    • Mikey

      Seriously – you’re criticising Paul’s post on the basis he is called ‘Paul’ and is therefore a Rangers hater? Wow. No really – WOW! 🙂

  36. dan

    Aan someone enlighten me (Edited)

    • Dan,

      There are plenty of places, usually sites of the Rangers persuasion, where you will find certain allegations in lurid detail.

      I know you are not engaging in “whataboutery” but is is raised as an issue, it seems to me, for that purpose by others.

      The issue at the heart of the matter deserves proper consideration, not simply being thrown about as a counter argument to matters of tax and football player registrations.


  37. AB

    Out of interest, do you moderate the posts of “mick”, who’s usual taunting, provocative contributions I felt plumbed the depths with the “our revenge is the laughter of our children” IRA slogan post?

    How do you expect Rangers supporters to behave when that chump turns this site into a Kerrydale tribute act?

    I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here and presuming there is a rational reason for this idiot getting a free rein.

    • Ernesider

      “…Our revenge will be the laughter of our children” – Bobby Sands

      Bobby believed that the sacrifice he and others were making would lead to a more tolerant, hate free equal society in N. Ireland where Catholic children could grow up happy.

    • mick

      @ab your a fool and deluded jelly and icecream milk lemonade chocolate
      you hate the fact paul lets me post your not the site moderator your just some twisted deluded idiot thats not getting a free rein ,all our kids are in fits of laughter ab

  38. Sir

    I am deeply grateful to you for all your posts though I could have done without the one on the merits of a religious upbringing and I did.

    The two main questions for me are, the resolution of the EBT question and the sale of assets question. On the latter, if I were owed £1m by old Rangers and then watched the fire sale that took place I would not be happy. I await the appointment of the liquidators.

    Lastly, I admire your tolerance, but is there not a case for stopping the rantings of AB (maybe you have and I missed it – I have been skipping a bit).

    AND worst of all, it is generally accepted that it is ‘cohort’ not ‘cohorts’ – sorry!

    • Mikey

      Exceptionally nice post Violet, as it happens I was interested in the religious post and it is part of what makes me like Paul’s blog (go Paul! Even though it is a catholic, Rangers hating name, go Paul!)

      I too am interested in the whole EBT question, and while I am on landing on Celtic’s side in defence of the cleared case against their’s, I can see where AB is coming from – even if it is done in a very irritating way and one eyed way,

      Finally, in defence of Paul, and shame on you for skipping some of the comments, but Paul was replying to AB’s comment which including cohorts. Paul, I forgive you for not checking AB’s comment better, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming AB is a literate, analytical poster. 🙂

      Shame on you Violet for mistrusting Paul.

      • p groom

        mikey re yrs of 15 sep 7.24 pm. glad you think AB may have a valid point. sorry but have to take issue with you and other like-minded souls over your interpretation of an ebt and how the celtic one was ok. no it wasn’t. firstly it is no great surprise to me that spl deem it ok, AFTER celtic had put right, under duress from hmrc, what had, up to that point, been deemed illegal. the time for spl to come down hard on celtic would have been when the ebt was being actioned. they didn’t for reasons unknown to us. secondly your understanding of how an ebt works seems not to agree with the usually accepted version. an ebt is a Trust set up by an employer to make LOANS to their employees. the definition of a loan is that it has to be repaid. there are legal tax advantages in ebt schemes. fine so far. you like me might wonder why a football employer would want to set up a loan scheme for their players. I think the answer is that he does not but certain people have advised him that here is a way to pay salaries instead of loans and therefore reap the aforementioned tax advantages. lets call this a FALSE EBT. the employee either does not pay tax on earnings passing through a false ebt or he does and the employer withholds it from hmrc. either way hmrc are denied the tax due.
        in celtics case they used a false ebt to pay the players salary purely so that they or the player or both could illegally avoid tax. if hmrc had not investigated several years later and extracted the required tax from celtic, they would have got away with it. to be fair ( if that is a suitable word in these circumstances) celtic did own up to hmrc, thereby initiating the investigation. however this was not a selfless and noble act by celtic. they saw what was coming down the track in the form of rangers massive ebt schemes and knew the game was up. so celtic were definitely guilty of financial doping, its all been settled to hmrc’s satisfaction, nothing more to see here, please move on. you can bet your sweet life though that celtic will not be offering false ebts again any time soon. naturally until it is proven, one has to attach words like alleged, if, may, etc to the rangers case. my personal view is that there isn’t a candles chance in hell of them being found innocent of operating false ebts and dual contracts.

        • Mikey

          Hi P,

          where to start?

          Ok lets start with AB – I think his question re Celtics EBT is valid, but unacceptably put. Your question, however, is much more interesting yet has as little real validity as AB’s.

          Let me explain my reasoning – I do understand that an EBT is to give a repayable loan to an employee or other member of a company.

          The following is my supposition from the various bits in the media / internet bampot forums: –
          In Celtic’s case it appears they set up one EBT because it was a hangover from a previous contract with the one player for whom it was operated.

          I hesitate to appear to be patronising, but the SPL enquiries only have the issue of dual contracts as their remit (without seeing any any documents).

          The Celtic EBT was set up after the player left, so was probably a contractual thing to do with gis early termination of contract. Therefore it was probably in his registration contract and therefore the SPL found no case to answer, or it was formed after he left the club, so again was not seen as a side contract by the SPL. As I said, we are flying blind here, because we do not have any definitive statement from the SPL, but unlike AB (and I presume, yourself) I don’t believe the SPL are anti-Rangers, so believe the yhave investigated the Celtic EBT, instead of just looking at it and going “it’s Celtic – so that’ll be OK then”.

          Sorry for all the maybe’s and possibly’s but all I can give you is a best guess based on the SPL statement.

          As for the HMRC stuff, it appears HMRC spotted the EBT in an audit, queried it, were told it was contractual payment and they told Celtic tax was due and a payment was made.

          No conspiracy, just Celtic getting caught in a tax avoidance scheme, not apparently of their making, and making restitution to the Crown when it was realised tax was due.

          I really don’t see what more Celtic could do? Unless it was all a onspiracy and HMRC found out about it. But if so, why not use it for more players over more years?

          • p groom

            tks mikey. am reluctant to prolong this thread but we do seem to be some way apart. you earlier indicated that AB has a valid point in claiming that celtic were guilty of financial doping. ( not my choice of phrase but I suppose it does replace ” non-compliance with rules which resulted in financial gain” with just two words ). now you seem to be aligning yourself with others who maintain that celtic did no wrong. that case is over and done with but IMHO you need to understand that it was just as illegal as offences rangers are alleged to have committed. you write that you understand the ebt loan concept. lets hold it right there. nowhere or at any time in this whole rangers saga have I seen or heard of any ebt used by them or celtic or anyone else, to make a LOAN to a player, ex-player or director. all payments have been SUMS OWING TO THEM of one form or another which is illegal. end of story you would think but the mental gymnastics employed by many commentators on here and elsewhere in order to prove otherwise never ceases to amaze me. rgds.

  39. Gypsybhoy


    I suggest you go and spend some time investigating whether or not it was ‘financial doping’ – for your own sanity. Please remember that you are not in a playground.

    The art of debate does not include antagonistically repeating the same question over and over even when provided with an answer. If the answer is not to your personal satisfaction then go and research and come back to us.

    However, I do not believe that your intention was to ask a simple question. Especially when you use an abhorrent statement like “harbouring kiddy-fiddlers”. This, in effect, shows your true nature for what it is. I do not wish to disrespect the dead but Ibrox could also be referred to as a “harbourer” of “kiddy-fiddlers” to put it in your uncouth language – if you are a Rangers fan then you’ll know of whom I refer.

    You, in effect, represent the microcosm I believe of the attitudes, mind set, and arrogance of the wider social group of which you are part of, including Brother Alistair.

    It amazes me in an anthropological sense how your “hive mind” works and how easily manipulated vast sections of you are. It is rather interesting though and what we are witnessing/about to witness are the death throes of a culture steeped in hatred for anything/anyone that is not them. You have destroyed yourselves…you just don’t know it yet.

  40. Tam Makondi

    AB – Would a certain centre half who was fond of taking rent boys into his hotel rooms for the entertainment of himself and fellow players while touring, or “hooring”, in America and Canada be considered a “kiddy fiddler”? If not, why not?

    • Den

      I think the price paid by Green will not stand up to a lot of scrutiny. Very informative post Paul.

      I think AB has done a fine job of hijacking this thread.

      Celtic have no case to answer on the EBT

      I think we should not allow AB and the like to drag us down to their level.

      We know that certain people have abused their position at clubs in the past and it is not something to be bandied about lightly, it is also totally irrelevant to the subject of the post.

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s