£94,426,217.22 or 0.84% of HMRC Bad Debt

Duff & Phelps have produced their final report into the administration of Rangers. One headline leapt out of the coverage, which was included in the Report in a paragraph of masterful understatement as follows:-

“The Joint Administrators have continued to review the claims made by HMRC in the administration. The claims are largely made up of determinations issued by HMRC in accordance with Regulation 80, penalties and outstanding PAYE/NIC. The Joint Administrators have adjudicated on these claims and confirmed to HMRC that for voting purposes, their claim will be admitted for voting purposes at £94,426,217.22.”

I will repeat that figure – £94,426,217.22.



I wondered if there was any data about the largest sums lost to the public purse in corporate insolvencies in the UK, on the assumption that that figure will not be dented by a single penny from any assets remaining in the soon to be liquidated company.

Whilst there was no definitive league table to hand in the time I was looking, I did find a very interesting article from 2010, written by a respected Partner in a firm of Insolvency Practitioners.

Steve Clancy was quoted two years ago saying:-

“… many of our banks are now in public ownership, and political imperatives may have dictated HMRC not to call in tax debts.

“Since it (HMRC’s Business Payment Support Service) was launched at the 2008 Pre-Budget Report, the service has reached over 300,000 arrangements to give over 200,000 businesses, who collectively employ more than 1.4 million people, more time to pay over £5.2 billion of tax. The vast majority of these arrangements have been with SMEs.

“On top of this figure needs to be added the overall debt owed to the HMRC by business which according to The National Audit Office, has risen by £2.7 billion to £27.7 billion in 2008-9. HMRC has already increased the provision for bad debt to £11.2 billion as of March 31st 2009 – 40% of the total owed.

“… there can be no doubt that the total now owed to HMRC could be over £30 billion. In other words HMRC is now acting more like a lender of last resort than a tax collector.

“But the growing numbers of cash strapped companies that have put off paying taxes are at risk of insolvency because of this. Increases could start as soon as the end of the year as, despite the scheme still being available, we have seen HMRC tighten up on the procedure considerably.

After all, if a company cannot pay its current debt, it certainly can’t pay this debt plus the arrears to HMRC.

“Business owners also need to be aware that even with the introduction of deferred tax payments, all tax liabilities will still need to be paid albeit over longer and more manageable timescale in addition to meeting all current and ongoing obligations as and when they fall due.”

Looking at those figures, can we assess how bad for the public purse the demise of Rangers might be?

Based on the figures above, which are a couple of years old, the Rangers HMRC debt forms, on its own 0.84% of the bad debt provision set aside by HMRC for the entire tax debt of the UK.

It forms 0.31% of the total tax owing.

For one company potentially to have “contributed”, on its own, one one hundred and nineteenth share of the written off tax debt for the UK is a truly remarkable feat.

I know, before the comments flood in about Arsenal, Vodafone and Philip Green, for example, that other businesses have caused significant losses to the Treasury by going bust or by operating tax reduction schemes correctly. Many of those tax reduction schemes, as condemned by the Prime Minister as immoral, are entirely legal.

This is not a case of theft by the owners and directors of this company – but falls into the category described by the writer in the piece I quoted above. There is no suggestion that I have seen that the former operators of the football club were acting as they did with the tax authorities, in connection with the running of the club, to create money for themselves. Instead the money “saved” was ploughed back into the club. I also know very well the consequences of the HMRC change of view in 2010 regarding payment of outstanding liabilities.

And coming back to Mr Clancy, the author of the piece, he has proved to be the author of very wise words. He is clearly a prescient accountant.

His firm? MCR. You might not have heard of them, but they were taken over by a global Insolvency firm in 2011. You might have heard of it …


Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Administration, HMRC v Rangers, Rangers

187 responses to “£94,426,217.22 or 0.84% of HMRC Bad Debt

  1. Andy

    Yaawwwnnnn…..And the point is…….to encourage some further anti-Rangers debate on this forumn….congratulations, roll up roll up, eco, mick and friends, The darkside has spent all our £1.50 each and it’s just not fair!!

    • Sorry for boring you Andy.

      Hopefully next piece will be better for you.

    • TheBlackKnight

      still no shame then?

    • mcfc

      The point is Andy, that it is not just eco, mick and friends that will regard you and your “club” with contempt when this story breaks nationwide – it will be the whole of the UK. You will be the “News of the World” of football,

      But like Murdoch, Brookes, Coulsen, Goodwin and Diamond – you’re just too wrapped up in your own little world to see it yet.

      Enjoy the ride

      • Andy


        When the story breaks ‘nationwide’…..and I don’t see anyone really batting and eyelid as it’s old news!! I think your being a little melodramatic when you say the whole of UK will be treating Rangers with contempt…for reasonable minded people which I am sure you are, they can clearly see that this was a sad event due to the mismanagment of a club, so the contempt is more likely to be aimed at SDM and chums and CW for his part…from reasonably minded people that is.

        Assuming your a MCFC fan, I hardly need a football finances lecture from the club that has embarked on the most ludircous, reckless spending spree in football history….what was it a turnover of 124m and expenditure of 135m….deary me!!…..hardly a sustainable business model…what happens when your owner buggers off??

        • Ernesider

          You don’t have to worry Andy. You will still get your Daily Lager Allowance.

        • mcfc

          I am a man city lifer. So yes, I do know a thing or two about the ups and downs of football on the pitch and at the bank. But there’s a big. big difference. Unlike Rangers, MCFC are spending money that belongs to their owner – earned – tax paid – 100% on the radar. if he wanted to balance the books he could have one of his other ventures sponsor the corner flags for £50m each a year. Happy days !

          As for “melodramatic”, we’ll see. But most sports fans south of the border don’t know the details and certainly the wider public don’t. So the story has not yet broken. When some professional, investigative journalists spend some time on this it wiill be a great story. Nick Davis of the Guardian may be free now the NoW mob are heading to jail.

          I’d suggets a litlte humility and self examination – it may be good preparation for things to come.

          • Andy


            You are bonkers….so its okay to spend more than we earn because our owner can sponsor a corner flag….And what happens when he leaves? What happens to your dear old man city when the owner decides, bugger this we havent won the champions league in 5 years, im bored of this….Your slating Rangers for overspending, but cant see that your own club is doing so!! Rangers gambled on european success and failed, the recession came round and the price of steel plummeted, therefore our owners Assets no longer outweighed his liabilities, then follows a credit crunch, so he offloaded the company as quick as he could to lets say an a£$hole, who had little means and bang here we are!!! ……Your owner can only fund you aslong as his money lasts….Murray had over a billion worth of assets at his prime…we didnt think that was ever going to end…..

            Had there been no recession, and Rangers had continued to pay normal tax (PAYE etc), then lost the ebt case, then I would be very suprise if some repayment arrangement between HMRC and MIH was not agreed. So Rangers are as much a victim of reckless owners as they are of the recession…

            Im up and down with work in England all the time, and the guys in London certainly know all about it, but its just one of these unfortunate things to most people, they have a bit of banter and just get on with it, but here after one of Celtics best ever performances in the champions league, their fans are talking about Rangers!!

            • mcfc

              Well one day Sheiikh Mansour may lose interest in mcfc and dreamtime will be over – if you want dull don’t support ciity.

              In the meantime he spends a tiny fraction of his tax-paid wealth on mcfc. He pays his creditors and he abides by the rules of the land and he abides by the rules of footbball and long may it last. If he choioses to sell mcfc i have every reason to believe he will do so honourably and no one will have cause for complaint or concern.

              Perhaps you can parse through the above and tell me how the Rangers situation is different.

            • COYBIG


              “Your slating Rangers for overspending, but cant see that your own club is doing so!!”

              Man City are spending their owners money. Rangers spent money that should have went to the tax man. Can you honestly not see the difference?

              “Rangers gambled on european success and failed, the recession came round and the price of steel plummeted, therefore our owners Assets no longer outweighed his liabilities, then follows a credit crunch, so he offloaded the company as quick as he could to lets say an a£$hole, who had little means and bang here we are!!!”

              No, the true story is – Since Murray took over Rangers, he spent money we now know he had no intention of paying back. Rather just moving it from one part of his ‘buisness empire’ to another. That’s all well and good when you have chums at the bank that holds your debt. But then Lloyds Bank took over all of Murrays debts, and get this, they wanted him to pay the money back. How rude is that?.

              Then we have the EBT scheme that was improperly used. HMRC found out about it and wanted the money back. Murray was already struggling to pay back Lloyds Bank, so he panicked and offloaded Rangers to the first person he could, Craig Whyte. And well, everyone knows the rest…

              “Your owner can only fund you aslong as his money lasts….Murray had over a billion worth of assets at his prime…we didnt think that was ever going to end…..”

              Man City’s owner wipes his wee bum with £1 billion notes.

              “Had there been no recession, and Rangers had continued to pay normal tax (PAYE etc), then lost the ebt case, then I would be very suprise if some repayment arrangement between HMRC and MIH was not agreed. So Rangers are as much a victim of reckless owners as they are of the recession…”

              Dam that recession! HMRC do not agree to CVAs, which is what Rangers would have been looking for when they lost the EBT case in your hypothetical story. The owners ARE the club. To try and blame the recession for your former clubs’ wrong doings is laughable. If anything, the recession only made the obvious outcome happen sooner.

              “Im up and down with work in England all the time, and the guys in London certainly know all about it, but its just one of these unfortunate things to most people, they have a bit of banter and just get on with it, but here after one of Celtics best ever performances in the champions league, their fans are talking about Rangers!!”

              So you walk around the streets of London asking “the guys” if they know all about The Rangers situation then? Inheriting your dads’s large nose is unfortunate, what happend at Rangers was cheating.

              Yes, Celtic played great last night and I am very happy about it. What else do you want me to do, run around the streets naked?

    • cam

      Andy you are thrashing me on the thumbs score,,i am in awe of your indefatigilability.
      I was informed by my son who is studying forensic science that the reason we can smell shoite is due to shoite particles being inhaled,,,if you don’t hold your nose when eco replies then you might end up related!!,,,aaaarrrggghh.

  2. TheBlackKnight



    ………….Just WOW? 😉

    • Waterygrave

      The ‘tax’ liabilty for Rangers for comparison to the overall HMRC outstanding debt is in the region of £30m from SDM times and £9m from CW times, the rest is penalties and interest. This is not do defend Rangers wrong doing but to point out that the crux above is wrong and should be £30m as a % of £11,500,000,000 of expected bad debt which is 0.0026% or as a % of overall unpaid tax is £30m of £27,700,000,000 which is 0.00108%.

  3. JimBhoy

    And…. another £50m to creditors no less.. Well done Rangers truly remarkable feat…I wonder if Green bought that piece of history..?

  4. Robert D Bruce

    Remember, £94,426,217.22 is the debt that Duff & Phelps are satisfied that is due to the tax authorities. This is the amount that they have conceded that RFC 2012(IA) is indebted to the HMRC. There is some debt in dispute and this has not been conceded at this time. The figure announced is relative for voting purposes only and may not be the final figure. Other debts also exist. Duff & Phelps have disallowed the £27 million debt to Ticketus for the purposes of voting pending a court decision regarding that indebtedness.
    If all debt to minor creditors is added to the £94 million figure the debt would be in excess of £100,000,000.

  5. Well it may be a yanw for the darkside, but the point is that this is one of the main reasons that this and other sites exist.

    Where in the MSM has any of this been highlighted, – discussed, – or laid bare?

    In memory this is the largest company failure in Scotland but it is not news worthy, neither is it accepted as a shameful position to have been placed in which the supporters of “their club” have contributed.

    ANY RFC supporter that wants to retain their history should been ashamed of the tainted titles won by crooks, IMO, who stated that they would spend £10 for every £5 that CFC spent.

    Thats all and good but it was nt their £10 to spend, it was first the banks and then the taxpayers and that was how they “won” the titles so very dear to them.

    Unjust? I should say so, wow? no not wow, just lets make every single one of the people responsible pay. There will be long investigations, frustrated no doubt by the “man” but as its HMRC that will be carrying them out it the man should not get in the way too much.

    All we ask for is truth, transparency and honesty and in Govan and MIM HQ that is very short in supply.

    Keep building those walls Andy, the foundations similar to MIM/RFCG are build on very wet sand.

    • Andy


      ‘Wow’ is normally something said when one is suprised….this is not new news, what number were you expecting??

      As I said, the point of this peice, and to be fair it’s worked a treat, (see comments) is to keep up the anti-rangers feeling..

      We all know its happened, its wrong, but hey what can you do?…..WELLL as the hmrc has already stated, they will rightly pursue the directors that lead to this shambles, thus allowing the club to get on with playing football, which is what we are doing….and this appears to upset so many Celtic fans, even though were a million miles away from the level they are at!! Look at how good use done last night…yet here you are writing about Rangers!!!

      Why should I feel ashamed? I paid my money and watched my team win the matches??……Bascily what your saying in your post is that you want the money and the titles…funny old world.

      • TheBlackKnight

        I believe the “wow” in this instance relates to the (what certainly appears to be) ever increasing liability that Rangers Football Club Plc/ Rangers FC 1872 left in its wake.

        I’m sure you are correct though! I’m sure it will continue to go up and up before it truly amazes!

        Have a nice day! 😉

      • SouthernExile


        You bought the titles by cheating the taxpayer.

        I am not a Celtic fan.

        I am a taxpayer.

        You bought the titles by cheating the taxpayer.

      • andrakeith


        Like Southernexile says. It was the taxpayer that Rangers took the money from. Believe me, there are few things in this world I would have enjoyed more than watching that other overgrown parasite of Scottish football, Celtic, be brought down by the crass stupidity and hubris of Rangers.

        But that is not what happened. And now we are left having to suffer their holier than everyone else gloating. I am mad at Rangers for that, I am mad at them for the cup final you cheated my team out of (although seeing as we were cheating a wee bit too at the time, I’ll let you off with that one). Most of all though I am mad that you took my taxes without asking me because you couldn’t stand to be second best to your hated rivals.

        Get a grip man. You and most of the bhoys that will read this may find this hard to believe but there is a whole world outside of your old-firm, with schools, and hospitals and libraries. Just a little fewer of them than their might have been.

      • Don

        As a Celtic fan I am happy to accept that Andy’s reduction of his Clubs fall into its present situation, as an accurate and honest one. Moreover, the majority of other Rangers fans, like Andy, in accepting how matters came about as being wrongful, leads me to agree that these fans do not warrant being pilloried at every opportunity. Now, I completely accept that this particular Blog does not, in any way, seek to do this but, some of those responding can’t seem to help attacking and slating people like Andy who are, to my mind, making valid accurate points. I know if I was a Rangers fan I would not take too kindly to those seeking to blame me for something that was clearly carried out by those few, select, controlling minds at Ibrox at the relevant time.

        • Andy


          Thanks Don, what I find in here is that many try to portray Rangers as the root of all evil and wrongdoing in the Scottish game….Whether people admit it or not, Murray would have been able to haplessly move money around companies for as long as his assets were worth more than his debt…the recession caused his assets value to plummet and that is why the bank called in the debt, worried that the negavity equity might fall further and they would have to post a damaging loss to their balance sheet, had there been no recession then none of this would have happened…..yet. this is a fact.

          What would still have been around the corner, as yet unproven, is the potential ebt bill, and lets say we did lose, as someone earlier alluded to, I was not suggesting a cva, but an agreed repayment timetable for the full balance…..I fairly sure hmrc would have accepted this form of deal instead of pennies in the pound through liquidation..

          Im just a Rangers fan, supporting my club, I dont really care what Celtic do, great result last night but I just dont care….the obsession with Rangers from the many celtic fans is just embarrassing!!

          The people on here moaning that Rangers took their tax money, get a grip – go ask the millions of people scrounging benefits for your money before whining at losing £1.50 due to you!!….If we didnt choose to join America in policing the world at every oppurtinity then we would have a lot more schools and hospitals..

          Its a sad person that cant let go of the past and move on….

          • carl31

            “had there been no recession then none of this would have happened…..yet. this is a fact. ”

            Agreed. The recession hitting had a big part to play in accellerating the end.
            But many clubs are managed/run with financial responsibility and pay their taxes despite struggling.

            • Andy


              You can see from previous posts that champions league was built into Rangers business model, if the investment on playing squad had worked then there wouldnt have been a major problem until the, as yet unproven, tax bill landed. At which point had finances been under control with regular euro money etc then im sure a deal would have been done…unfortunately, many things failed at once, the club did not progress in europe as expected and MIH group asset backed funding collapsed with the value of its assets depreciation…This is why murray HAD to sell. Which is why CW got his hands on it, and what he done was just madness.

              All businesses have to take a risk in order to grow, Murray took that risk and used what he beleived was a legal tax scheme to maxmise the chance of his risk succeeding. Unfortunately, coupled with a recession and failure of the risk to acheive its goals, it became too much of a burden. Murray, then made a mistake and instead of prudently setting money aside he re-invested in the hope that the club could trade its way out, and to an extent it did as debt was reduced year on year, but eventually the recession was hitting MIH to hard and he was forced to sell rangers.

              CW – What can we say, crazy man, did crazy things and here we are……

              Senior management took high risk strategy and it failed….yet the only people not able to move on are our greatest rivals!!

              Rangers paid their taxes for all of Murrays tenor as they were due, what they received was a bill post those years requesting funds in relation to ebt which rangers at the time did not beleive were subject to tax, and still dont, obviously. Even if proven wrong, its likely to be on mismangement of the scheme rather than this scheme was illegal.

            • carl31

              If its “as yet unproven”, its obviously ‘as ye’ not the time to move on is it?

              This whole sorry situation is like a car crash scene, where cars are still hurtling towards it ready to smash into the current carnage to create an even bigger pyre of crunched and mis-shaped body parts, twisted metal, burning fuel and black smoke…

              … and your like the guy standing waving pedestrians on, telling them to go about their business and there’s nothing to see…

              …even though some of them would like to help.

          • Budweiser

            “go ask the millions of people scrounging benefits for your money”
            That is the second time in as many days where you have uttered this Tory drivel. There are hundreds of thousands of honest, hard working men and women forced by circumstances to exist on the pittance that passes for benefits. Many of these people were forced into this situation because of the recession. The recession didn’t just happen along and we tripped over it – it was caused corporate greed and financial recklessness on an unprecedented scale. THE BANKS FAILED .Remember that? Companies could no longer get loans or service their debt, hence laid off workers or became insolvent [sound familiar? ] Perhaps you could try reading the last pages of Downfall where there is lengthy list of all the creditors of rangers,many of whom by now are probably scrounging benefits.

            • Andy


              For every hard working willing to work person on benefits, we have the same number of scroungers, these people are a plague on society!!…We also have an element of people unwilling to do jobs they feel are ‘below’ them…..

              I would hardly describe benefits as a pittance…costs half a billion a year to manage, anymore and there would be no point in working!!!

              Rangers surviving in current corporate structure probably helped many of the small businesses stay in business with future cash flow, but many bitter people on here would rather rangers were gone and left these creditors that have missed out on one bill, not to have a future at all!!

            • Andy

              looks like your thumbs ups and my thumbs downs weve got quite a number of scroungers on here!!…..shame thats where my tax is going!!

            • Andy

              “I would hardly describe benefits as a pittance…costs half a billion a year to manage, anymore and there would be no point in working!!!”

              JSA for a single person with no dependants is £71/wk (irrespective of where in the UK you live.) As a long-term London resident, let me assure you that that goes nowhere.

              As for SDM, shuffling debts from one part of a business to another to hide the fact that you can’t/won’t pay them back is hardly good business practice. The writing has been on the wall for many a long year; if only the Scottish MSM had actually done any digging instead of filling their faces with Minty’s succulent lamb.

            • Andy


              Then I would suggest getting a job!!…..what so tax payers should be paying out more so people can get more free money?…Pull the other one!

          • Michael

            Andy, you, your team and your fellow supporters are a bunch of pathetic, conniving, tax dodging cheats. You want us tax payers to let things go. That won’t happen. You are involved as much as Murray and Whyte. Time you admitted your complicity. You’ll feel better for it. “My name is Andy and I am a cheat”.

            • Andy

              Haha, are you implying that I am not a tax payer??? You lost £1.50, so yeah get over it, i dont really care if you dont because then its just you thats stuck bitter and twisted, whilst im out enjoying my football care free!!

              “My name is Michael and I think Rangers are all bad men”…some one please please give them into big trouble!!

      • Marching on Together

        “I paid my money and watched my team win the matches” If every Rangers fan had paid another £100 each year for their season ticket, if individual ticket sales, merchandise and corporate hospitality had all cost the same proportion more, then the debts run up by Rangers would have been covered.

        They weren’t, so you and thousands of other Rangers fans were having their pleasure at watching matches and trophies and titles being won, and being able to brag about it at work on Monday, subsidised by the tax-payer.

        So you didn’t actually pay your money – you only paid part of it.

        • Andy

          If they had priced at £100 more a year then I would have paid £100 more a year…I can hardly be blamed for management not costing the price of tickets correctly….

          So what do you want, a cheque, BACS, credit card payment…move on you sad case!!

          • Marching on Together

            Send your cheque for the relevant amount – bearing in mind the number of season tickets you had – to the administrators of oldco Rangers, then come back and hold your head up high.

          • cam

            Forgive them Andy, for they know not what they do.

      • @Andy so for the delay in responding, was enjoying myself in dear old mother Russia……….. if you actually read my comment it is ” wow no not wow”. maybe I should have made it clearer, WOW? no not wow.
        Hope that helps, I believe your subsequent comments reflect my post completely as I am seeking to bring to justice to people culpable……….not the fans of RFC although a fair few should feel equally agreived annoyed and upset. You paid your hard earned money watching your team who were, again if found guilty, basically cheating. What about ALL the other teams that Rangers played over the years while conducting this act and their supporters, all of who have EQUALLY paid good hard earned money to watch their team win loose and draw against the team that you followed? Are they not equally justified in seeking to right the injustice of it?

        If you reflect on that perticular point then maybe you can begin to understand the frustration and ill feeling felt towards the people responsible and in some part the apparent arrogance of the supporters in understanding the matter.

        I don t want “your ” titles, I have expressed that on many occasions, but neither should rangers have them eithe if found guilty of running dual contracts. Neither am I seeking to “have a go at TRFC” I want to have a fully transparent and honest closure on the whole issue as soon as possible. I am not here writing about “rangers” I am here writing about a compnay and institution that has brought shame and near destruction to a very shaky business, Scottish Football. I am here because if it was not for Blogs similar to this one everything would have been swept under the carpet and very very quietly carried on as “normal”. I and many many others are determined not to allow that to happen.

  6. Trojanpar

    I wonder what Traynor the doyenne of Scottish football churnalism will come up with to exonerate his blue mates – probably the old old story that if the HMRC had acted earlier and the same with the SPL and SFA then Rangers would not have been able to rip-off as much as they did from the NHS, schools and social services.

    But just like Traynor you keep blaming Celtic in some wierd way for Rangers downfall and their utterly anti-social behaviour. Well I’m not a Celtic fan but I still find the lack of humility from Rangers fans as saying all that needs to be said about them.

    And Traynor is a real case in point – he seems to want every Scottish club to have their finances forensically accounted for because of the actions of Rangers which may well soon end up in the courts of the land.

    What about Mr Traynor’s finances – Is anyone forensically examining his accounts. Is all the money he gets from the Record, TV and radio taxed at source. Ah mean that seems to be what he wants for image rights although mibbe not for EBTs. I wonder why the difference in treatment.

    What we do know about Mr Traynor is that he is a director of Skoosh Independent products Ltd along with his wife. She holds 99 x £1 and he holds 1 in the company which was created back in January 2000 which is probably around the time he started working with the Record.

    I would guess the Record pays its employees on PAYE net of tax and stamps. So I don’t think Traynor needed Skoosh to pay his wages into gross but a clue comes in the company activities described as ‘Television and Broadcasting’ which might tie into the doyenne’s less that sparking performances in that area.

    Earlier this year there was an almighty stushie at the BBC over people getting paid their wages gross into service companies. There is nothing illegal in this but id does represent an opportunity to participants to reduce their tax liability.

    I have no real idea whether Traynor’s earnings from TV and radio are paid into Skoosh and if they are whether they are net or gross. Part of the problem is that the company accounts are prepared on a small company basis which, although perfectly legal, means that very little information is available like turnover which might give an indication as to earnings.

    Mr Traynor has done nothing wrong legally that I am aware of but then I actually have no proof of whether the EBT payments made at Rangers are illegal or not and like most sane people will leave that decision to the tax man. Similarly with the dual contract issue I have seen no evidence which persuades me one way or tother as to the lkegality or otherwise and again will wait on Lord Nimmo Smith and his Commission presenting their decision and as it means little to me I will accept their judgement.

    What is important to me is that my club should be forced to waste money because Traynor is shouting from his rooftop platform that all clubs should be forensically examined on illegal image rights payments to provide some kind of cover it seems for his pals in blue. To be fair I don’t think we have a single player would could raise a fiver on image rights. But what right does Traynor have to interfere with the running of my club and to querstions it’s honesty.

    If Traynor wants to trumpet his pal Sally’s ‘transparency’ call then let him start with his own freelance earnings. How are they paid to you – is it gross or net of tax. And how many succulent lamb dinners are shown in your exes.

    Before accusing others of what appears to be non-wrongdoing then show that you are free from suspicion Traynor. What dividends have you or your wife been paid since Skoosh began and have any of you taken director loans. Is the tax rate you have paid based on Corporation Tax or at 50%.

    If you refuse or fail to provide this basic info then stop making a fool of yourself by demanding it of others. If you shout for full disclosure for others then you have to provide it for your business activities – PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

    • Marching on Together

      Cracking post.

      The concept of a journalist being 100% clean on his expenses claims does not even bear serious consideration. Never mind the tax avoidance you are referring to.

      • cam

        Off topic maybe but there’s a new attracton at the Riverside museum,,,an invisibilty device!
        Off i popped hoping to see some cutting edge technology,,,what a bloody rip off a rusty turnstile stating property of CFC.
        Now if we had the internet back in the Kelly/White years what a tale that would be.
        Memo to CERN posted regards time travel.

        • Jacko

          Strangely, as a CFC fan, I find myself agreeing with you Cam. In the Kelly/White years we Celtic fans often complained about the crowds being much higher than reported. Unfortunately the club were certainly not the benefactors of this. Rather the kellys and whites were, I believe, ripping off Celtic for their own benefit. Celtic were the victims. They can hardly be accused of using this invisible turnstile money to finance transfers and wages. Remember we were the biscuit tin mob as frequently portrayed in the MSM. If a shop has an employee/owner who is skimming from the till the shop is not to blame. They are the victims. You don’t have to pay tax on money that someone scammed from your business.

          The facts are Celtic fans got off their @rses, or more to the point, stayed at home in large numbers on their @rses to force this corrupt crowd out the door.

          Then, rather than forcing administration to run away from their responsibilities The Bunnet came in, took on the debts and issued shares to rebuild the club.

          If we had only known about the administration/abandon debts routine and the fact that our club need not die in that event then we could have happily saved several millions, transferred the ground, the team, and all the rest for a pittance and issued the shares from a debt free situation. Then boasted to high heaven about our debt freeness.

          Shuggy K. makes a great play of Celtic being within minutes of going out of business. I believe they were until The Bunnet saved the day by accepting responsibility for the debts. He saved the club Your lot just walked away.


    • ecojon

      @ Trojanpar

      Interesting piece – I see you mention the small company basis for preparing the accounts of a Limited company. ‘Small’ company is relative and covers companies with a turnover up to £6.5 million and a Balance Sheet total not exceeding £3.26 million.

      Maybe Traynor is a mystery investor but shirly not in Rangers although maybe someone should ask him because as he says, what was it? Ah yes: ‘You never know what might come to light’.

  7. beeanos

    wow indeed. For a company that regularly posted losses for decades to accumulate such a tax bill takes pretty impressive mismanagement. Considering the losses, its unlikely they ever paid any corporation tax so this is just VAT, NI and PAYE. You could probably buy all the SPL clubs twice for such a figure. Sorry you find it so boring Andy, i find it staggering.

  8. Jono

    On a quiet day, I’ve been checking out various sources / blogs / forum and there appears to be a building support for the various rumours that Rangers won the FTT appeal. Do any of our wise readers have any insight into the truth or otherwise of this rumour?

    • TheBlackKnight

      Rangers didn’t win anything. MIH are the respondents. And NO they are just rumours.

      • Andy

        So if the case it’s lost it’s Rangers but if it’s won it’s MIH….

        • Andy again you fail to seperate the 2…….just to clarify agan MIH is the “EBT” bitty and RFC is the dual contracts run through the EBTs. 2 seperate issues completely, even if the EBT appeal by MIH id successful the question of the dual contracts remains to be answered.

  9. mick

    100mil whens the pf going to demand charges its a lot of money and surely moonbeams and walter mitty and the men in charge of the matter must be brought to justice soon.

  10. carl31

    That £94m is more than three times the GDP of Tuvalu c.2010

    The overall debt to creditors, c.145m, is more than the GDP of Kiribati for the same year.

    At an average gate of 30,000 and paying an extra fiver on the ticket price which is ringfenced to clear the debts, and assuming 20 home gates a season, the fans could have paid off the full £145m in about 49 years.

    • mcfc

      Now there’s an idea.

      if you Rangers fans are so proud of your club why don’t you pay it’s debts and restoire some dignity. £5 on every ticket until it’s paid off.

      You see, what people really don’t like is the arrogance that you think you can just walk awy from your debts and the damaage you’ve done but still rant on about your proud history.

      If Rangers fans had any honour they’d be demanding that Charles Green hands back the cheated trophies before they attend another match.

      • Andy

        Hhahaha, says the man who’s club are literally buying trophies…you haven’t earnt a thing in your history!!

        • carl31

          Which current SFA club has most recently literally bought its history – as claimed loudly by the man in charge of it?

          • Andy


            Of couse Charles Green jsut bought the club history, as did the owners of man city – what I said was they are buying ‘trophies’….not history…I find his comments laughable because he slams Rangers for something his own club is doing…and fails to understand that when Rangers were doing it, they could afford it because our owners assets were worth more than the debt so he was able to fund this…Murrays company took a direct hit because of the recession, those that cant compute that played a major role in our downfall are not that smart or deliberatly not recognising the fact.

            If everyone wants to play the game of tainted titles then Celtic fans fire away, but Man City fans,really?? Dont come on here slamming the trophies we have won on money we didnt have when city are doing exactly the same….though I understand the complex he has, its not to disimilar to Man Utd dominating Man City for so many years and Rangers dominating Celtic….now your both on top, you feel the need to let out a little hot air!!

            • Marching on Together

              “its not to disimilar to Man Utd dominating Man City for so many years and Rangers dominating Celtic”

              Man Utd and Rangers – cheating diving tax dodging scum, the both of them.

            • Andy

              You’re wrong – Murray *could not fund* any of it, he was simply moving debt off balance-sheet, so to blame the recession for RFC(IA)’s downfall is simplistic, to say the least.

          • ecojon


            Please keep up to date – he has now changed it to ‘the badge’ has bought the history. Problem with that is the badge doesn’t have a legal personality so don’t think it can buy or own anything 🙂

        • mcfc


          the loser is – first to stamp their little feet and scream land scream and scream

          I WIN !!!

          • Andy

            You win what?…a ticket for all those empty seats so often found at etihad stadium??

            • mcfc

              come to think of it – why didn’t Sheikh Mansour buy Ranger instead of City – erm – let me think – oh I know – maybe he wanted a football club with a future – not just a past.

  11. This level of corruption and fraud maybe a yawnn to guys like Andy who would rather we all just forget about the dead rangers corruption but to the rest of Scottish football its dynamite…and its still fizzing.

  12. thomas cochrane

    andy there is no need of anyone to foster….anti oldco feelings……..those feelings,have been there (pre.admin,liquidation)for 100+years of, anti irish/scotts/catholic/…..bitterness.practiced by the suits + vast majority of oldco fans for all that time……whether you agree or not………get 3 of your oldco fans together and the first topics that comes up…..filth,bile,unsavory remarks about…..religion.la papa,celtic,big jock…..its endless.!!!!.about your friends…..the ratpack,hackpack,+meeja eejits n talking heads,msm……dont get me started ………..yours in celtic.TC

  13. Sandro

    Let’s calm down and wait for the final verdict of HMRC. The number of 94 million pounds is not really new, it was already listed in the CVA.

  14. Maggie

    I realise you are probably forensically dissecting every part of the Duff and Phelps report and will no doubt share that with us in the,hopefully,not too distant future.However a few things struck me:
    Firstly,as mentioned by Robert D Bruce,Duff and Phelps seem to have indicated that the amount due in the big tax case was included in their final total.Isn’t that a bit premature when we have not yet heard whether the appeal by Old Co has been successful.Maybe they know something we don’t.
    Secondly: I see that,while in administration,Rangers Old Co had an operational shortfall of 4 million pounds. I find this incredible. Surely the job of administrators is to maximise the return for creditors.
    Thirdly: Is it really in creditors interests that the PR firms of Media House and Spreckley were paid £112.500 and £28,941 respectively.
    Indeed, if I were a creditor of Old Co Rangers,I would be asking what it was exactly that these firms did to enable me or my company to achieve the best return possible.I would be asking if that money paid for every Rangers “legend”,former and current players,former and current managers,former directors SDM and every has been and never were,who,
    singing from the same hymn sheet,carpet bombed the MSM.
    I know I don’t have to itemise the “hymns” on that sheet,but I really,really really want to…….
    EBTs are legal
    No such thing as dual contract
    We’ve been “punished”enough
    SPL knew everything about it for years
    Other people used EBTs
    We won everything fairly and squarely ( my correct usage here,they normally say fair and square) on the pitch
    We won’t be standing for title stripping
    And on and on and on ad infinitum, you know the rest.
    What a superb PR strategy……everyone say the same things over and over and over and ipso facto they become true.Job done boys! The bills in the post.
    Ehhh!!!!! How is this in the interest of the creditors?
    A final thought Paul. Today while reading the latest greatest Ranger to spout the party line….. Steven “we don’t do walking away,but instead we Tupe away” Davis,I found myself simply skimming over the drivel( no knowledge of tax arrangement,all the boys in the dressing room never heard of dual contracts,same old,same old ) and thinking: Who actually buys this crap now? That single PR strategy has reached the tipping point,
    I think they doth protest too much.

    P.s. Yes readers,that IS the same Steven Davis who was named by Mark Daly in the BBC programme as being a in possession of an EBT.:-))))))))

  15. Andy

    I’ve done well today, that’s 62 thumbs downs (sorry points) in one day!!

    Were very sorry for taking your money and spending it on players. everybody happy now?

    Ready to move on, talk about your own team??

    • carl31

      So, are you guys all goin to pay an extra fiver for the next 50 yrs or not?

    • Craig

      Andy, as far as I’m concerned. my interest in this case is nothing to do with Rangers, but the disturbing story of how a / any football club can come to owe so much money and allow it’s corporate governance to be so lax as to let this happen – whether it was the actions / inaction of the boards under MIH or under Whyte.

      This is a Scottish story, that ought to be discussed and analysed UK wide to see what happened and who is to blame, and how do we avoid it in the future.

      The Rangers supporters apparent attitude of let’s move on now, nothing to see here, does not help either them or Scottish football as a whole. I can understand they feel victimised, but they need to take a step back and see the bigger picture and not their own wee fiefdom.

      Forget about the name, but a company managed to walk away from £94 million of recognised debt (recognised by the Administrators) to HMRC alone, along with the many other creditors.

      That surely is worthy of discussion and the Rangers point of view would be welcome if it didn’t just involve a blinkered attitude that won’t even discuss the issues in the first place, but rather seems to have a blind defence of anything Rangers.

      This is huge and I am interested in the resolution and the fall-out, and if my own club will survive the debacle.

      I’m not walking away from discussing Rangers, while it is still unresolved.

      • Andy


        Its fairly clear to me how it happened.

        Murray when rich enough funded rangers expenditure, he used a tax scheme that was legal at the time though possibly mismanaged, and the club received an unexpected bill of 80m in 2010, rangers contested the bill as they beleive the scheme was legal and adminstered properly, but due to murrays group having significant financial troubles relating to far larger sums, he was forced by circumstance to offload rangers as his assest value continued to plummet, in the lnowledge that his group could not absorb the loss of the potential defeat in ebt case, he offloaded to the first person to show him a dollar…..the rest as they say is history!!

        If you need blame then it starts with murray and his directors for not being prudent enuf during the good times….tho the truth is this could be said of many companies and individuals see the volume of reposessions and co. closures. Many people and companies just didnt save and Were unprepared when it all came crashing down….

        No conspiracy, no cheating, no lieing, just badly managed set of affairs.

        People worried about taxation should actually be thankful that it was just rangers and not the entire murray group, in an odd way maybe murray did duture tax revenues a favour by saving mih at the expense of rangers!!

        As it stands murray group still operates with workers payin tax, rangers still operate with people payinf tax…..

        Maybe the wuestion should be of the government as to why they waited ten years to act??

      • ecojon

        @ Craig

        They just keep burying their collective head in the sand and believe it will all go away if we just stop asking questions.

        They seem to think that the rest of Scottish Football should let them crawl away licking their wounds still as defiant as ever about being punished too severely and declaring that every one is against them and that’s without even mentioning their paranoia.

        And now they are organising boycotts against SPL clubs with the avowed intention of bankrupting them – jeesuz what kind of people are these? Who are they going to play football with. Tbh they might as well start enrolling in the domino leagues right now because they won’t be playing football in the future.

        • Andy

          Yet constantly kicking someone when their down is okay??…. I think you’ll find the romance one-sided!!

          For the moment it has all gone away and were back playing football, if as you in your expert opinion beleive CG will have us back in administration sooner than later then there might be something worth talking about… But this episode is over, the 94m was published many months ago, its not been a secret!!

          Grow up, stop inviting wild theories and understand that corporate failure happens because of the failure of investment and lack of prudence at appropriate times thus leaving the corporation unable to handle a shock rise in cost (80m ebt bill) or a sharp fall in revenue (failure to qualify champs league), your childish bitterness continues to keep you talking about Rangers rather than Celtic….This is over, the club now play in division 3, the 94m isnt going to be paid (if it is 94m) and any boycotts are hardly going to bankrupt anyone are they(not that I agree with them but i rarely go to away games anyway), since they all voted for a league without rangers they can all afford assumably not to have rangers fans turn up for a one off game.

          Rangers will be playing football long after you and I are gone….maybe time you accepted that…

          • Craig

            unless I’ve been misreading the news, the £94 million was a potential debt due to HMRC, but it appears the court appointed administrators have accepted £94 million is due. This is a massive announcement of a real debt, not a potential one.

            Corporate failure in the current economic climate is not a new or unexpected thing – in this case it is the method that is surprising: to have an unexpected bill from HMRC is horrifying if it is £940 or £94 million depending on the size of business. My company was recently handed a bill over £2000 and we were congratulated for good record keeping, but we’d incorrectly posted a few VAT amounts. That hurt, but it was accidental – the thing with the Rangers case is that it may have been deliberate tax evasion, not avoidance. If that is the case then a HMRC bill would not have been a surprise once found out, and that is why it is so important that the results of the SPL commission and the HMRC Tribunal are soon to be announced.

            I want to know how this could happen – you have replied that it is well known what happened, but until the reports are in I have to point out that we are all speculating.

            Corporate failure due to a mistake is one thing, but failure due to deliberate failure to report and pay sums due to HMRC is fraud.

            At this time we don’t know which happened, but I’m not moving on until the official reports come out and tell me what really happened, not what you tell me happened.

            • Andy


              The 94m was declared as a debt at the cva 3 months ago, its always been a debt since HMRC declared some time ago, Rangers are appealing the legitimacy of the bill the bill they received.

              And heres the thing Craig, its unlikely anyone is going to pay it, so whats the point to constantly harp on about it…

              What do you not understand, it was deliberate use of an EBT scheme that was declared in accounts and perfectly legal at the time, hence why the HRMC didnt ask for any money during this time….following the closure of such schemes and the governments empty coffers they have stepped up their efforts to try and recover tax they felt was due since 2010, beleive it or not, not just from Rangers!!! It was clearly deliberately use of a legal tax loop hole for avoidance purposes, but may have been incorrectly administered so may be taxable. Rangers didnt hide anything, it wasnt evasion by any stretch of the imagination, do you seriously think accounts would have been signed off if it had been??

              I have asked so many times, what do people want to happen?……. I think expectation levels and actuals will differ dramatically….Rangers will continue playing football, and no amount of moaning or whining is going to change that!!

              It would make me laugh if we win the tax case though..

            • Craig

              @ Andy

              If I misunderstood, I apologise, but I had thought the £94 million debt in the reports was always a potential debt, awaiting the FTT, but I thought now D&P appeared to have accepted it as a legitimate liability.

              Of course no one is going to pay it Andy – that is the point in a nutshell – thanks for re-iterating it. Someone ran up a £94 million bill, plus the other creditors and walked away to leave both Scottish football and one of the country’s oldest clubs in financial chaos.

              But Andy, please don’t try to patronise me – the EBTs were in the accounts – please! Yes EBTs were legal, but did Rangers or did they not operate them in an illegal or “incorrectly administered’ manner.

              Strangely enough, I’ve heard it said that many companies have signed off their accounts with illegal or incorrect things in them!

              As for what I want to happen – I don’t want the application of law to happen. If there is guilt the guilty should be punished, if there is innocence they should be exonerated.

              At this time Andy I don’t know which is which, and despite your statements that this is what we know to be true, I’m afraid neither do you.

            • Craig

              I DO WANT the application of law to be happen!!!!! DOH!

            • Andy (again)

              “Rangers didnt hide anything, it wasnt evasion by any stretch of the imagination, do you seriously think accounts would have been signed off if it had been??”

              One of the very few things Campbell Ogilvie has said in the course of this saga is (wait for it!) “I signed off the accounts ‘in good faith’ I didn’t actually know what was in them.”

              And fyi, as you don’t seem to have grasped a point that’s been said both on here & elsewhere, the Accounts only showed a single item for the EBT payments, not actual sums paid out to individuals, or indeed any further information.

            • sigma99

              The 94m is reported as that is a worst case figure. It presumes the tier 1 tax case reaches a certain verdict, which is yet to be determined.

              I suspect we all agree that Craig Whyte did some very bad things and didn’t pay about 12m of taxes due. I hope he, and those who colluded with him are held to account fully for their actions.

              At some point all of this will come to an end. Some however seem determined to deepen the divide.

              In the past bad people have done bad things. If those people broke the law they should pay the price in exactly the same way you or I would do. In due course I am sure this will happen.

              The BTC has very little to do with

      • Maggie

        @ Craig
        Maybe you should send this to our First Minster as there has been a deafening silence from Holyrood on this issue.

      • Maggie

        @ Craig
        Oops my reply went to Andy (below) in error.

    • Maggie

      @ Andy
      Sorry Andy,no one is moving on until the long overdue denouement of this whole sordid mess.
      Let me share some words from the sagacious and philosophic mind of Buddha………”Three things can not long be hidden: the sun,the moon,and THE TRUTH ” ( my capitalisation in case you misinterpret my point )

  16. ecojon

    @ Maggie

    You are too hard on the lads who are merely footballers. Their agent did it all for them as they don’t understand EBTs and they most certainly can’t remember side contracts 🙂

    Fairly and squarely might be correct English but when building the pyramids fair and square is what the master masons worked to. It’s all about horses for courses.

    However you may well be correct that they won’t be standing for the title stripping – by then they could be on their knees.

  17. Gary Brown

    This debt was not caused by the Rangers supporters. We hear constant calls for humility and accusations of arrogance. Why should the Rangers supporters, who have done nothing other than support their club, bow down in humility to anyone? Tell me.

    Also, I can’t help but notice the irony of our esteemed writer’s apparent horror at seeing money disappear down the plughole as a result of misconduct.

    If we are going to start bandying around idiotic statistics, it amounts to 0.017% of the total tax income of the UK for last year (the country will recover), it probably amounts to considerably less than the Manchester City ‘arrogant’ guy’s club owner made from the collapse of Barclay’s bank… Google that one. How much did that cost the country?

    Just think how many kola cubes you could’ve got for that Carl 31!

    However gratifying it is for the Celtic supporters who suckle at our esteemed host’s breasts in here, the talk of Rangers, refers to Rangers as an entity. No one currently at or supporting Rangers is denying that this debt is a terrible, terrible thing and that it should never have been allowed to happen. Likewise, it is not the fault of anyone currently at or supporting Rangers.

    When you start throwing around accusations of arrogance and a lack of humility, throw it at the people who caused the problem, it wasn’t the Rangers supporters.

    • SouthernExile

      @Gary Brown

      “This debt was not caused by the Rangers supporters. We hear constant calls for humility and accusations of arrogance. Why should the Rangers supporters, who have done nothing other than support their club, bow down in humility to anyone? Tell me.”

      Your club bought titles by cheating the taxpayer.

      Your club was gerrymandered back into Scottish football by the SFA.

      So by cheating and corruption you are still playing football and still hold the titles. But your fans play the victim card and continue with their supremacist mindset.

      That’s why.

    • philip spicer

      I wasns’t aware Barclays Bank Collapsed.. When did that Happen ?

    • ecojon

      @ Gary Brown

      ‘Tell Me’ you say. Well the reason that Rangers fan have some culpability is that when Murray was throwing cash about like confetti then some very brave Rangers supporters were being villified by the majority of their fellow Bears for flagging up warning signs about the disaster ahead.

      At agms the FF squad even questioned the great man himself but again they got no support. The vast bulk of Bears didn’t care as long as the tens of millions, not earned from football, was shovelled into a club which when it declared it would spend double whatever Celtic spent, the Bears cheered to the rafters.

      And then along came Whyte – I will say nothing because I don’t want to upset you too much – but again warning bells were rung by some intelligent Bears and again they were ignored.

      Now chico is the Saviour – well I hate to tell you but you ARE in for another suprise. Just wait 🙂

  18. I continue to be amazed at the quality and forensic rigour of the main posts on this site – the comments, not so much.

    I am forced, and I may come to hate myself for this, to agree that Andy makes some good points. As I have written before, what interests me are the assets sale and the ongoing liquidation and aftermath. I am not really interested in the stripping of titles and not at all interested in vilifying the vast majority of good honest Rangers fans, who, like me, pay their money to watch the team their fathers and mothers brought them up to support. That some people have brought this disgrace about is what we should focus on. If we changed the name of Rangers to, say, Woolworths would the same venom be unleashed on those who did, or did not, shop there. There are places for bile and this site should not be one of them. So, let’s play nice and honour the spirit of Paul and the others.

  19. I meant the above to come from me and not that Lesliejohn by whom I am chained to this sink.

    • ecojon

      @ Violet

      Basically I categorise whether a Rangers supporter is a decent peson when I observe how they react to some of their own who come on here spouting the most offensive bile which is often of a sectarian nature.

      Both Celtic and Rangers have elements of their support which are hardly human and I don’t care what history they point to in defence of their hatred. But the problem I find – and I am a celtic supporter – is an unwillingness which comes from a closed mind of being unprepared to entertain that other people have a right to their opinion which may indeed be wrong.

      Some Bears trolls who are drawn to this site appear only able to repeat their mantra parrot-fashion. They seem to believe that debate or discussion means repeating the same point over and over again no matter what anyone else says.

      These people I now ignore but I am always prepared to listen to any posters opinions and discuss issues with them often with the aim of trying to understand why they hold the views and opinions that they do – I’m not trying to change their position or get them to adopt mine. I just happen to believe that with civilized inter-reaction that solutions can be found for the betterment of overs.

      A lot of my Celtic fans don’t necessarily agree with all of my opinions but that is life and is the difference between free thinking and an open mind and sloganising. And, of course, sometimes there is a bit of banter pure and simple and that really is part of football.

    • Andy


      Sometimes I am on the wind up on here, purely because of anti-rangers agenda that becomes more evident with every article, but at times I do try and throw in something sensible to the discussion, which more often than not leads to quite a number of posters on here getting themselves in a twist to such an extent that they end up being completely hypocritical.

      At the end of the day, I only care about going to watch my team play, but Im inclined to defend our position from constant attacks, from people too bitter to move on.

      The reasons as to why Rangers ended up in this mess?? Well its fairly obvious to those with half a brain cell as to why it happened. No good has come from it for any club or the sport in country, but we are all where we are now, so why are people still obsessed if it is not bitterness? There not going to get there £1.50 back that they are so annoyed at losing…, thought they would have better chance of getting this back if they let us get on in growing again….ironic huh?

    • Budweiser

      @ violet
      “That some people have brought this disgrace about is what we should focus on”. That is precisely what Paul and others [notably rtc] have done and are continuing to do. However if we take our eyes off the ball we may lose sight of present or future ‘disgraces’. According to andy & cam everything is just hunky dory thank you – stop asking your stupid questions ,let us just watch our football and move on! Which brings me to my last point ;- you state , ” If we changed the name of rangers to,say,woolworths would the same venom be unleashed on those who did,or did not shop there.” A good analogy but not quite good enough imo. as rangers & woolworths are two entirely different types of business. A better match might be if woolworths were a cult with thousands of followers which went bust owing millions. Tradgedy! Then–lo and behold ! A new leader appears [lets call him the messiah] , the messiah declares ; Fellow Worthonian Followers ! We are not dead! we live forever! However to stay undead you must renew your membership and buy shares in Woolworths! [mass hysteria and crying] . You can trust me as i have not personally put a penny in and I AM NOT A SHAREHOLDER ! But i have secret admirers who want to invest in our following Trust me! We will defeat ALL our enemies! GIVE GENEROUSLY TO BE SAVED !
      Sorry about that – getting a bit carried away there – but hope you get the gist. btw agree about the bile thing.

  20. Maggie

    @ Craig,
    Re “This is a Scottish story and should be discussed throughout the U.K.etc”
    Maybe you should send your post to the First Minister as there has been a deafening silence from Holyrood on this issue.
    Don’t know why my replies keep going to Andy’s post, def not my fault.

    • Craig

      @ Maggie

      no probs, got it now!

      Maybe we all should write to First Minister as I cannot understand why there hasn’t been the in-depth analysis you would expect on a story like this in the press – unfortunately, I don’t subscribe to either the MSM is pro-Rangers or the MSM is pro-Celtic points of view, but there coverage is exceptionally poor and appears mostly to be reportage of statements rather than analysis.

      I don’t hold with the succulent lamb theory, but probably tend more to the not enough bodies, not enough time theory. But either way for the only dissected comment to be available on the internet rather than our news outlets is very sad. It leads to some commenters on this particular blog stating it is anti-Rangers, when, whilst I can appreciate their point of view, I can only see a blogger deconstructing the publicly available information put before us.

      So would the First Minister do anything? I doubt it. He’ll be wanting to see what happens without being seen to be picking sides. Anyway, he’ll still be coming down off the high of speechifying at the Ryder Cup on Sunday!

      • ecojon

        @ Craig

        Just noticed Craig you had also raised the First Minister/Holyrood involvement issue.

        I do not support the SNP nor do I support independence but for the life of me I cannot understand the squeals that come from the Darkside fan forums about Wee Eck and the Scottish Government not doing enough for Rangers.

        What exactly do they want? Do they want public money to be injected into the club on top of the Income Tax that has already been lost? Do they want Wee Eck to instruct the SPL/SFA to stop bullying Rangers and leave them with their tainted titles?

        The ignorance about the workings of government being displayed is just staggering. Income Tax collection isn’t a devolved issue but even if it was Eck would need to wait until Hector issues his tribunal decision before any statement could be made from Holyrood and I go back to the question – what do rangers expect to hear. All that could ever be said is if you are unhappy with a HMRC decision then appeal it and once that process is exhaused appeal to court.

        Eck also cannot interfere with the SFA or SPL which are, in a sense, quasi regulatory bodies and again all Eck can say is if you are unhappy with their actions or decsions then go to court.

        Then we have Green’s failed pie shop outburst with NI First Minister Peter Robinson – he must have been wondering how the hell he ever agreed to meet Green. My take on the matter is that Green would be looking for cash from the NI government to open a couple of Rangers Retail outfits in NI and in a cloud cuckoo land fantasy attempt to sell 5 million Rangers shares to the NI Government Pension Scheme – don’t think so somehow 😦

        Gawd there’s nothing that Wee Eck could do about Halls of Broxburn with c2,000 jobs so what would he be able to do for Rangers with c200 FTE jobs.

        Green is a capitalist and should know that Governments are loth to inject taxpayer’s money into failed/failing private enterprise companies especially if they are creating controversial press, have been censured by the SFA for a bigotry/disrepute charge and are threatening to economically destroy SPL football clubs throughout Scotland.

        I often wonder whether some Rangers fans are actually capable of abandoning their fantasy land and deal with the real world.

        • Craig

          @ ecojon

          obviously didn’t get my point over!

          Was being ironic (or sarcastic, can never tell which!) that we contact the First Minister, was instead trying to make a point re MSM non-analysis of this issue.

          But never mind, good comment ecojon, but watch that ulcer! 🙂

          • ecojon

            @ Craig

            Just searching for the light as I have genuinely tried to figure out what the eck Holyrood is menat to do about Rangers 🙂

            Ulcer’s fine but BP wasn’t for a spell last night 🙂

    • ecojon

      @ Maggie

      Why should Holyrood be involved?

      • ecojon

        @ Maggie

        Hollywood – Yes
        Holyrood – No

        • Maggie

          @ ecojon,
          You would have to get Woodward and Bernstein to write that screenplay.:-)))))))) I’d certainly pay to see that.
          Re Holyrood: Right thinking people would think that tax evasion on such a scale would merit a few words of, Oh! I don’t know, condemnation perhaps from the government. I’m sure someone,anyone in our devolved parliament could cobble together a list of what nearly 100 million pounds could pay for.
          Wasn’t Jimmy Carr vilified by all and sundry, from David Cameron on down,for daring to have his savings/earnings ( not sure which) in a legal tax saving trust.
          Maybe I’ll just get in touch with Dave and Gideon Osborne and see what they think about it all.

          • ecojon

            @ Maggie

            I’m afraid that being a responsible member of the community who pays his taxes, believes in the Rule of Law and being innocent until proven guilty then I have to say that Rangers has yet to be found guilty on the Big Tax Case.

            Even then there is a problem in making a statement which might inflame the hordes who will never ever accept any criticism of their club and indeed there is the possibility it might lead to the possibility of civil unrest with those in Celtic colours beings the most likely to be hurt.

            So Wee Eck will be well advised to keep his powder dry and forge a multi-party alliance for legislation to deal with website which foster hatred of any type and to deal harshly with posters and those running such websites who help provide the platform for hatred.

            Some of these sites are way beyond the bounds of human decency and regularly stray into criminally actionable statements – it is time to give a signal to the police to act so that we can start draining these cess pools of hatred.

  21. Maggie

    Great points Craig,though slightly disagree re not enough bodies.
    Surely the business and financial journalist should have followed through once Rangers Tax Case, Phil Mac Giolla Bhain and Mr Mc Conville of this parish had let the cat out of the bag prior to administration.At the very least those on the sports’ desks could have consulted with their more knowledgable colleagues and actually reported the facts accurately.
    Completely agree that Mr Salmond will probably say nothing of his own
    volition,why would he,when he’s desperate to be all things to all men in the hope that come the independence vote, there will be enough suckers to vote for him. Then again he might use the SFA “excuse” of not wishing to inflame tempers and cause social unrest. Truly the best small ( minded) country in the world.

    • Craig

      Aw Maggie, don’t say we’re a small minded country. Don’t judge our country by the posters on the internet – most people have other stuff to do than comment on the blogs they read!

      As for the SFA and SPL, exasperation is the word, with their machinations to bypass the rule of law, whether actual law or football law.

      Football needs a reality check and if a club can’t survive financially, then it shouldn’t survive – and that includes my own club. If they can’t be fiscally prudent when not much money is coming in then why should we be surprised they can’t survive when even less money comes in?

      Scottish football is in for a shake up, it’s just a shame it’s been forced on them by Rangers doings.

      • ecojon

        @ Craig

        Spot on about the SFA/SPL rulebooks – I tend to never get involved in the Byzantine rule books in football because they just make new rules up whenever they want so know point trying to make sure they adhere to the rulebook IMHO. But their disdain for their own rules is a major part of the Scottish Football problem and is deeply rooted in years of pandering to one club which is now biting the hand which fed it for so long.

  22. Vince

    @ Andy

    You mentioned EBTs were declared in accounts. Other legitimate commentators have argued these declarations were not made. Just asking you not to make claims as fact that are so clearly in dispute.

    I suggest the attacks focus on rangers fans because you are the targets that keep putting your heads above the parapet. IF the tax case and amounts is upheld your club should have died – irrespective of who caused it because In many peoples views the football entity (all aspects business, history, etc) should have ceased to exist because creditors appear to have been shafted by the apparent discount sale to a newco rather than breaking it into more valuable separate components. Your club continues to exist – because you keep insisting this. Therefore you appear to support the apparent dirty deeds at all stages. Ebt and onwards.

    I find it difficult to support your assertion that it was just innocent financial mismanagement. These people are too rich to be that stupid.

    By association you are also tarred with the brush of the minor but voluble elements that are strongly aggressive to those that would disagree. (read the rangers fan sites that don’t mediate violent threats for examples.)

    I agree with you that rangers are not sole custodians of nut job fans but they are the most obvious at the moment.

    My perspective: I am a former Celtic fan who is so disgusted by the unprofessionalism of footballers in general (simulation my arse – cheating!). Shysters masquerading as agents (they should be banned or have law degree as min qualification) and the all round poor financial management rife throughout as well as the current topic that I couldn’t care at all last night about celtics first away champions league victory. I’ll stick to my rugby that (while there are some issues) still has more sportsmanship in its little pinky than the entirety of football.

    Oh boy that rant was so therapeutic.


    • Craig

      I feel your pain Vince –
      Dundee United was my first love, but golf is my true love: particularly after wipeout Sunday at the Ryder Cup! Shame I still care about the old flame so much though!

    • Andy


      The legitimate commentators can go look at the accounts and see that the ebt were declared – this is an actual fact, its in dispute anywhere to the best of my knowledge….not even from a poster on here!!

      I wouldnt say it was innocent, it was a calculated high risk strategy that adopted a high risk tax avoidance scheme, which they may or may have not mismanaged.

      And alas, what is everyone going to do today, now Dermot Desmond, the man of the honor that he is, and I qu0te ‘Rangers is a fantastic club with great history. With the support they have, they will come back.“They will, in not too long a time, be back in the SPL, I have no doubt about that.“They’re needed because of their following, the size of the club and their historys”

      Theres a WOW statement right there!! The top dog at Parkhead still recognises Rangers as Rangers!

      We have a laugh on here, eh?? …..que thumbs down, thumbs down…hahaha

    • ecojon

      @ Vince

      I have taken a couple of pieces from the RTX Blog which throws light into the dark corners that some would rather we diidn’t see 🙂 Should the SPL and SFA have realised the cover-up going on at Ibrox? Probably! But in their defence this was Rangers, the honest club whose handshake could be trusted, surely they wouldn’t be hiding anything from their brothers 🙂


      ‘Please do not believe the rubbish that somehow Rangers declared what they were doing to the SFA. You can see a typical “declaration” here (UNDERNOTED). It does not even say that players were using the scheme. It does not say that any payments were made outside of contracts given to the SFA or SPL. It does not provide anything that would have let a tax expert know that something was amiss let alone football administrators – who are simply not qualified to do any kind of forensic accounting analysis. So let us stop with this “it was in the annual accounts” nonsense!’



      ‘On 28 July 2001, Rangers played Aberdeen at Pittodrie. Rangers won the game 3-0. Making his league debut that day was a German who would later go on to become General Manager of Bayern Munich, Christian Nerlinger. He also scored one of the goals. That game against Aberdeen marked the first game where the EBT scheme that is the subject of the ‘Big Tax Case’ interfered with the Scottish Premier League.

      Harper McLeod should take a look at Nerlinger’s contract filed with the SFA. Next they should obtain Nerlinger’s contract documents and payment history from Rangers FC (IA)’s administrators. Comparing the contract to the payment history alone will expose payments of well in excess of £1 million that are not listed on his SFA-registered contract. There is your prima facie case, Mr. Doncaster. There is no need to investigate any further to demonstrate that Rangers have a case to answer and that an independent inquiry is required.’

  23. Andrew Keith

    I have yet to see a defence of EBTs from a moral standpoint. There had been plenty of assertion that it was legal although, I would suggest that not yet been deemed illegal is more appropriate. We have even heard that the company cannot be blamed for using whatever non-illegal means it can find to minimise its tax burden. It is harder to argue against that unless we want our companies to be moral in some sense and work for the common good instead of just their own good.

    In my book, EBTs as used by football clubs are at best a means of avoiding and in most cases evading tax on player and management remuneration. That would be bad enough if the club were only trying to survive and pay the wages of all of its staff just to keep them in jobs. But in Ranger’s case, it was done out of an untamed obsession for domination of Scottish football or at the very least, domination over their hated rivals (which, sadly, means the same thing).

    Lets be clear, what underlies much of the criticism of Rangers is that they used an immoral and subsequently illegal mechanism to maximise their own position, wealth and profile. Arguing that it was not illegal, does not cut it. Rangers may be one of the great institutions of this country. Maybe they are, but they will have to show more integrity, honour, and humility if they are to illicit any sympathy from the people of the country let alone the bhoys on this blog..

    • ecojon

      @ Andrew Keith

      You make a good point about the moral question and I feel that on that alone Rangers have more to answer for than on tax evasion grounds although morality does enter into that as well.

      The other thing I have never heard a Rangers supporter answer with any kind of conviction is why the EBT payments were made if it wasn’t to be able to afford a better grade of player more cheaply by a systematic abuse iof tax regulations.

      The reason of course Rangers diehards can’t accept that argument is that it proves the charge of financial doping which takes us into title stripping territory. It has been estimated, without taking inflation into account, that Rangers robbed an estimated £50 million from the taxpayer by embarking on the course it did.

      Even cuckoos living in La La land must realise that there has to be a reckoning in the hard light of day and if the clog was on the other foot would they be so lax as to allow Celtic to say: ‘Look it’s in the past we just want to get on and play football. It was a Big Bhoy who did it and he’s run away now so nothing to do with us Gov’.

      • Andy

        It has been estimated and still as yet unproven!!

        The moral hazard covers not only Rangers directors but also, surely all the those that benefitted should be the ones feeling immoral having received all this tax free doh?

        If Celtic were in the same position, I wouldn’t care, as my team right here and now would be top of the league and competing well in the champions league…What’s done is done, and no matter the amount of shouting that is done, it’s not going to change it, so why cry over spilt milk……Maybe it’s just because you would have nothing else to write about…

        • COYBIG


          You keep writing “What’s done is done” and “Move on” when clearly there is still a long way to go in this saga.

          The result of Rangers’ appeal regarding the ‘Big Tax Case’ has yet to be officially published. Hence the reason why it’s an ongoing discussion.

          Also, the SFA’s independent panel have yet to rule on whether Rangers cheated by using dual-contracts. If they find them guilty, the independent panel would then have to announce what the consequeces are (e.g. removal of titles), and what punishments will be administered (e.g. a monetary fine).

          Finally, people come on this site to analyse and debate the blogs that are posted. If you don’t like discussing any of the issues raised in the blogs or the replys to them, then why don’t you just not bother reading them? Rather than constantly complaining. Because it does get tiresome reading “Your obsessed” over and over again. Especially after it has been explained numerous times to you why people are discussing these issues.

          • Andy


            People come on here to have a go at Rangers and don’t like it when they receive an oppossing opinion…hardly a debate!!

            The article was old news designed to encourage such anti Rangers chat, that is simply repeating the same old:

            – Rangers are bad because they used ebts and we all lost 15pence each a year that they did that….someone must be punished, jailed even!!

            – Rangers couldnt afford these players if they didnt have ebts so we want to take their titles off them…..Can you prove they couldnt afford them? Its not as if ebts were the only tax avoidance option open, nor that the murray group were short of a few bob at that time….perhaps they just picked what they thought was the cheapest option. Would a billionare by a plane for 10million when he could get it for 5million just cos he has the spare cash

            – Who are they going to fine?? You also make the assumption of assuming guilt. silly bhoy.

            I read them to help you guys understand that there is always another side to every story and that to constantly harrass rangers when no material change is going to happen is simply bitterness!!

            • COYBIG


              “People come on here to have a go at Rangers and don’t like it when they receive an oppossing opinion…hardly a debate!!”

              I’ll admit, some people do “have a go at Rangers”. But most people, including myself, post about the events that happend and the potential consequences. Just because you don’t like what is being writen doesn’t mean you have to conceive that everyone is out to get you and your club.

              “The article was old news designed to encourage such anti Rangers chat, that is simply repeating the same old:”

              The blog was not ‘old news’. It is about Duff & Phelps’ latest statment in which they said:

              “The Joint Administrators have adjudicated on these claims and confirmed to HMRC that for voting purposes, their claim will be admitted for voting purposes at £94,426,217.22.”

              Meaning they have now agreed with HMRC, and can confirm that £94,436,217.22 is the amount Rangers cheated the UK Tax payer out of. Before, in their other statements, it was only an estimate.

              “- Rangers are bad because they used ebts and we all lost 15pence each a year that they did that….someone must be punished, jailed even!!”

              So you are condoning cheating?

              “- Rangers couldnt afford these players if they didnt have ebts so we want to take their titles off them…..Can you prove they couldnt afford them? Its not as if ebts were the only tax avoidance option open, nor that the murray group were short of a few bob at that time….perhaps they just picked what they thought was the cheapest option. Would a billionare by a plane for 10million when he could get it for 5million just cos he has the spare cash”

              A man went into a shop and walked out with a TV. A week later, the police knocked on his door, and took them to the police station. When asked why he stole the TV, he man said, “Awk, I could have paid for it, but I was just going for the cheapest option, i’ll pay for it now tho if you want.” Do you think that would be acceptable?

              “- Who are they going to fine?? You also make the assumption of assuming guilt. silly bhoy.”

              Who would they fine? The club that agreed to accept any sanctions in exchange for SFA membership presumably.

              I wrote “the SFA’s independent panel have yet to rule on whether Rangers cheated by using dual-contracts. If they find them guilty” The key phrases being “have yet to rule” and “If they find them guilty”. So no assumption of guilt on my part. Silly Andy.

              “I read them to help you guys understand that there is always another side to every story and that to constantly harrass rangers when no material change is going to happen is simply bitterness!!”

              Yes, there is always two sides to every story, somthing you don’t seem to graps by the looks of things.

              The Rangers going into adminisration, Green deluding your fans and taking their money, The Rangers being suspended or fined – I would say that any of these probable suggestions would have an material/important effect. Or if by material, you ment that nothing tangible would change, then once again, I refer you to the said probable suggestions.

            • ecojon

              @ Andy

              Dearie me Andy’s been thumbing himself again LMAO.

            • ecojon


              Who has awared himself another 20 thumbs – wow that is really impressive. Cant debate but can thumb 🙂

            • ecojon

              @ Andy

              Another 20 thumbs for Andy – what a man!

          • ecojon

            @ Andy

            You’re letting things slip – only 8 thumbs against COYBIG. What a clown you are Andy and everyone now knows it 🙂

        • Sorry wrong again……………its proven albeit currently under appeal!!!!!!!!!! and its MIH NOT RFC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • ecojon

        @ Andy

        Amazing how my response to another poster has generated 7 thumbs down from Andy 🙂

        • Jacko


          I aspire to post points on here now that are thumbed down. I then know for sure they’ve hit a point. It’s almost as amusing as the Amazon reviews of Downfall even prior to it’s release.


  24. Pingback: More Than A Sports Story | On Fields of Green

  25. Ecojon

    Not sure if you will read this ‘yesterday’s story’ and all that. However, you were not one of the commenters I was alluding to. You, like Paul and some others post blogs that I wish I had written. I am pleased you are ignoring the bile, but detect you are doing so through gritted teeth. This site should be as intellectual as those of us who care can make it. Responding to rubbish only encourages more rubbish. As Andy says, he is winding people up. Well, there are a great many other sites where he can do that. Ignore the rubbish and keep up the good work. We’ll all sleep better.

    • Andy


      I initially tried to engage reasoned debate, but the vast majority of posters on here do so via green tinted glasses and no matter how reasoned your debate is, if its of different opinion to theirs then it will be quickly shot down……So here are some intelluctual questions from you, so you can sleep well:

      Is it not hypocritical for one to criticise a corporate entity for allowing their clients to use a legal tax scheme to reduce tax liabilities, whilst all along you are scrounging tax payers money from benefits?

      Is it not true that in any corporate company, the success and failure is largely down to the risk strategy of any given firms management? Adopting a high risk strategy for the lure of larger rewards is essentialy what seen the collapse of lehman brothers?, the same ethos applies to any corporate. Is it not also true, that those companies with a high risk strategy are more suceptible to downward pressures on the economy due to reliance on credit markets and asset value, therefore are inevitably going to struggle to service such large debts, particularly when the future revenue has been mortgaged off to purchase the assets in the first place, thus leaving the company with no cash flow.

      In addition, satisfying the fact that Rangers used ebts under the notion that they were perfectly legal, is it not understandable to beleive that having run such a scheme for ten years with out any questions from hmrc, football authorities or accountants, that one would not have expected a tax bill and therefore, would not have budgeted for this?

      The content of this article was simply to highlight old news to further encourage anti-Rangers debte, despite the views of many on here being in direct contradiction to the official stance of their clubs leader, many feel it’s better to kick someone when they are down, so I feel I have every right to defend my club against such attacks, hence the wind ups. If people want to debate, they have to be willing to listen to both sides of the story first…what we have here is a Rangers kicking match!!!

      • Andy

        The silence is deafening……If the above doesnt constitute reasoned debate as to why rangers ended up in such a financial mess then what does?….Sure its not exciting but its what happend, do people truly beleive Rangers used ebts thinkng they were breaking the law??

        • ecojon

          @ Andy

          Deafening silence – all I hear is your thumb clicking. You probably are Leggo as no one else could be as crazily driven. You actually are a joke as anyone reading your nosnsense can easily spot.

      • ecojon

        @ Andy

        How impressive andy – just be careful you don’d end-up with RSI – sadly for you most people oin here actually read the words and make their own mind up and at not influenced by cookie cleaners like yourself 🙂

    • ecojon

      @ Violet

      I always have a go at engaging as I love debate and discussion and I love to know what people think and what makes them tick especially if they hold different viewpoints to mine. Certain Rangers posters are either unwilling or incapable of actually engaging in a discussion. Once I have detected that then indeed I do ignore them as I have nothing to learn from them and obviously nothung to offer that they will consider. I am sure that as others recognise the trolling agenda being played they too will take their own appropriate action 🙂

  26. Jim

    Are all the other non old firm fans kind of fed up being accused of having green tinted spectacles here?

    • Craig

      You’re damn right Jim!

      • Craig

        Nightmare! I’m 5-2 down on the thumbs down front for saying I agree with Jim that I don’t like being accused of having green tinted specs as a non-old form fan.

        Not entirely sure what that means, but is it thumbs down from Celtic fans or Rangers fans, or worse Queen of the South fans,

        Maybe it’s because I blasphemed by writing “damn”?

        Oh no! I just did it again!

        Worried now!

  27. Andy

    I fear I may be getting sucked into something I would rather avoid, but here goes. It is indeed hypocritical “to criticise a corporate entity for allowing their clients to use a legal tax scheme to reduce tax liabilities, whilst all along you are scrounging tax payers money from benefits?” But whilst the scheme may have been legal, the way it was operated may not have been. I could construct for you a perfectly serviceable computer, but if you then use that computer to to break the law am I not right to at least criticise you for doing so. Also, you seem to be suggesting that those who do criticise are on benefits. Though it isn’t true, but so what if it is. Benefits are perfectly legal or perhaps you are suggesting that many of the critics are falsely claiming benefits.

    The successes and failures of corporate entities are due to many things, but undoubtedly risk plays a part. However, such risk is usually well managed. I am not sure I would site Lehman Bros. anywhere near a defence of another entity. Where the problem starts to arise is in the area of what is now called casino banking, taking huge risks that are way beyond the ability of any entity to sustain, no matter what the financial climate may be now or in the future – that is where hedging comes in. It is not unlike putting millions of pounds on a horse because a man in the pub told you it was a good thing. It might be a good bet, but so much of what economists call ‘noise’ can scupper its chances. If one studies economics, as I have, it is easy to run the economy. A few equations will do the trick. Unfortunately those equations do not include wars, pestilence and, in general, the unexpected. It seems to me that Rangers made a huge bet and may have done so using EBT’s and other arrangements, which better advice might have told them required more care in implementation (we shall see).

    As I have offered above, I believe that EBT’s are legal; it is how they are operated that may not be.

    I am always willing to listen to both sides of the story. But, I am also willing to hear them separately. A well reasoned argument advocating that smoking should be compulsory, should be met by a well reasoned argument to the contrary. It should not be met with accusations that I must be a smoker and that I might be in the pay of Players (if they are still around).

    I would be horrified if you concluded from this that I must be a benefit cheat and that I must be a Celtic supporter (I am neither). I believe I am fairly fair-minded and seek only to know more and not have that knowledge diluted by inappropriate criticism of the people who bring me the knowledge. After all, there are enough newspapers doing that already

    • Craig

      To be fair Violet, you do appear to have a lot of time on your hands to reply to posts in detail, so logically you must be a Celtic supporting benefit cheat. QED. 🙂

      Nicely reasoned, patient reply.

    • Andy


      Thank you for your response. I was not implying that everyone or even the majority on here were claiming benefits, but merely that there had been defense of claimants and greivance about the amount people are given that it would appear that some people have/are claiming benefits, whilst berating Rangers for not paying all tax for a period that at the time they did not beleive was due. I would like the government to give me £280.00 a month for nothing, but do I get it, hell no, so people are on here claiming £3.3k a year but moaning because Rangers by error or design denied them of 15pence a year. I find this galling to say the least.

      In a way, you seem to have justified my point, ‘usually a risk is well managed’, well my point is that it was not well managed (as with leham bros) the investment was over the top and did not provide sufficent return, when some sense had prevailed the club was hit by a shock event, the ebt bill, and coupled with the recession were unable to cope. Betting and Investment are essentially the same, its a gamble, Rangers lost and couldnt afford the consequences. The ebts were legal so were all agreed there, so Rangers did not run an illegal tax scam, they may or may not have badly administered a legal scheme that meant the funds became taxable. MIH group in an attempt to protect themselves from their bad investment offloaded Rangers to for want of a better word, an idiot, who ran the club into the ground very swiftly. I dont see any value or reason in peoples beleive that Rangers were deliberatley cheating for all those years, they were simply making use of a legal tax scheme, that they may have administered incorrectly and thus became liable for the tax.

      I dont judge anyone who does not choose to pass judgement first. I am a football fan first and foremost and initially came on here because the articles provided decent legal incite into the ongoings at Rangers and for a number of months debate was good fun, but slowly but surely the site has turn more bitter, is it because of Rangers remergence I dont know, nor do I care, but I will stand up for my club. I truly beleive that no matter what the outcome of any tribunal, court case etc some posters on here will simply never move on, and that is a sadness for them alone.

    • Andrew Keith


      I think the support shown by Rangers fans for their club is amazing. We had a little of that when my club went into administration for the second time recently. I also agree that simply raking over old ground is both hugely irritating for Rangers fans and irresistible for the rest of us. Sorry about that, its just the way it goes.

      I also agree that the large number of posters who define themselves and their comments by their allegiance to Celtic tends to distort the debate. And frankly it has had me thinking seriously about continuing my subscription to the blog in recent months.

      Where I disagree with you however is in your claim that EBTs were legal and so that’s all right then. No, no it isn’t. As I said in an earlier post, it is more accurate to describe EBTs as not yet being illegal. Do you agree there is a difference. Also, do you agree that Rangers motives for using them were if not dishonest, at least dishonourable. The evidence uncovered to date and I mean the side letters here which no one appears to doubt the existence of (if you do by the way, then please state your case), suggest that the avoidance of tax and NI was a critical factor in the deals that brought these fantastic players to Ibrox. I enjoyed watching them and would love to see their like back in Scotland again in the future. But it seems the only way that Rangers at the time could afford the wages they were demanding was to find a way to pay them without deducting paye and NI at source thereby increasing their take-home pay, and saving the club the employers NI contributions. That, my friend, is both illegal and immoral.

      I think your arguments are clearly coming from the right place and I would rather read your defence than Celtic fans goading you. But you write here for everyone. Most readers of this blog probably don’t write comments. Many who do are really keen on exploring the finer points of the situation. When the comments get hijacked by petty partisan points scoring it gets really boring. But when, otherwise, reasonable people resort to slagging everyone off just because they disagree with them (as you are close to doing), then it is time to head to they Daily Record website and the comments section there. But please don’t as I think this blog would be a less interesting place without you and similarly minded people. Bears or otherwise. (Am I right to assume that refers to Rangers fans)


      Where I disagree with

      • Andy

        @Andrew Keith

        Thanks for engaging in reasonable debate. I do agree with your statement to an extent ‘not yet legal’, but at the time of use they were legal and did not become illegal until 2010. So where I digress is when people say Rangers ran an illegal tax scheme, they didn’t, not even if they lose the case, what they will have run is a tax scheme legal at the time, but inproperly managed thus meaning the tax is payable. I 100% agree that the arrangement was immoral and at times abused (I mean why would bob malcom be paid via this method, he surely couldnt have been a big earner!), so fairly sure the club could have afforded his wages…and I do think there is some scope in the fact that an adviser, on commission no doubt, came into Rangers door and said here is a perfectly legal method that will save your company £XXXXX……that Rangers directors bought into all to easily, and then following no questions over a number of years from any authority, it probably just became common practice rather than malicious attempts to defraud the taxman. Immoral yes, illegal not for me, badly run and subsequently taxable but not illegal.

        The murray group frightened by their own mismanagements potential consequence chose to offload the company to the first person that would clear their bank liability, and CW got his hands on it. Embarked on a business plan that at best banked on CL money, but was utterly unsustainable, and here we are…

        I think a better debate would be, how do we now make scottish football better? How do we get to a level where teams outwith the old firm (and for a few years just celtic) can actually compete and qualify in europe? All this bad blood needs to end if we want a sport worth watching? thats all Im saying…

        • ecojon

          @ Andy

          Sadly before we move on you have to accept the truth of what has happened and your post amply demonstrates you inability to do this.

          The EBTs were never legal if the scheme rules were never followed and I think that may well be the problem facing Rangers – however we shall see in the fullness of time. Unlike you I have an open mind on the matter and am happy to await developments and findings.

      • ecojon

        @ Andrew Keith

        I am saddened that you have not recognised the pressure this blog has been under in recent times from trolls trying to silence it as one of the few places where the supporter of any Scottish club can engage in debate.

        Do not be fooled by the many, clearly PR orchestrated attempts, to attack free speech and debate.

        • Andrew Keith

          Hi Ecojon,

          As far as I see it, there are only two sensible responses to people who disagree with you and insist on making their point over and over. Trolls, some people call them.The first is to ignore them. I do that nearly all of the time. The second is to measure a response restating your argument and inviting them to present a coherent argument that makes the opposite point. I don’t have to agree with their point but at least I get some ‘airtime’ to give my view and the other guy (Andy in this case) gets to come across as either thoughtful or a bit of an arse. Either way, he is wrong, obviously, because he disagrees with me.

          I appreciate that you generally practice the first of the options above but notice that you are often quite quick to move on to the second approach of cautious engagement. I must admit to enjoying those engagements and the responses that come. My problem though is that many people following a similar path and, with all due respect, yourself included, sometimes end up just firing cheap shots about those mythical ‘thinking bears’ or similar and more recently ‘thumbing’ – whatever the hell that is.

          I try to keep to three basic rules on posting.

          1. Don’t post too much
          2. Only continue posting on the same thread if I am improving or extending my argument
          3. Don’t get into a one to one tit for tat – I can easily get that at home.

          If you don’t like them tatting, then stop titting………….

          As for trolls or anyone else trying to silence this blog, I am not sure how that is even possible, let alone made more likely by inviting the alleged offenders to state their case like an adult. I suspect though, that the thing that alarmed you most was my request to Andy not to stop posting and my agreement with him that this blog sometimes resembles a bear bating pit (I paraphrase). There are few things less interesting to me than supporters of one overbearing, arrogant, greedy, bully of a football club trying to score points over another overbearing, arrogant, greedy, bully of a football club. It is a pet hate of mine. Not one I am proud of, but one I can’t seem to shake.

          I would make one last point. As you know, my team, Dundee, have been in administration twice. I have some empathy with the way Rangers fans are feeling and can understand why they are reacting the way they are. Their goal is not to win a rational argument. Their goal is to keep their beloved football club alive. Trying to change the belief that the club committed terrible crimes, or that those that did it should be punished and not the club, or that they have been punished enough already is all a part of that. Yes it might be clutching at straws, it might lead to absurd arguments, it might appear offensive to some. But if you wouldn’t have similar feelings if it were your club, then maybe you just don’t understand what following a club really means for many people.

  28. Jamie

    The key point the aticle misses is that this is the value attached to the HMR&C for the purposes of voting rights of the creditors and that in reality in excess of £75m is as yet unproven.

    • ecojon

      @ Jamie

      Looks like you must be clearing your cookies which actually proves how week your position really is 🙂

      I hope you keep thumbing yourself if that’s what turns you on 🙂 🙂

      • dfd

        Is that around double figures now you have now made the same ‘joke’ about thumbing themselves? Perhaps because the posters in question have made a valid point. Just a thought…

  29. Kevin

    These players would have been at Rangers no matter what as the banks were throwing money at Murray, so it was won on the pitch.
    The tax issue regards the EBTs is unknown at this time and it could be a non issue, we will have to wait.

    • ecojon

      @ Kevin

      Oh they must have been guys then that played for the badge and didn’t care about the money – I’m sure they would have never walked away from the SFL3.

  30. Kenny


    You are overly sensitive to criticism of Rangers and you’re obsessing about perceived obsessions.
    Rangers messed up big time and it’s still big news. The next couple of months will also be interesting.
    You are trying to police what others should be interested in and paradoxically you are adding to the interest (hence I’ve felt the urge to participate for the first time!).

  31. portger9

    obsession for men (selik men)

  32. carl31

    “The ebts were legal so were all agreed there, so Rangers did not run an illegal tax scam, they may or may not have badly administered a legal scheme that meant the funds became taxable.”

    Youve often popped gems like this into your posts. Go look up EBTs and the criteria that need be met for one to be legal, then swot up on how Rangers Oldco ran their multitude of them, and come back and see how ridiculous the above looks.

    You give yourself a showing up. It doesnt come close to standing up for your club, its just making you look a daft denialist.

  33. carl31

    …if I was a gers fan and wanted to stand up for my club (which I wish a damn sight more of them would) Id be down at Ibrox protesting until the club was back in the hands of those who arent out to drain it of money, and rid of fly by night owners.

  34. Ally

    I appreciate your defense of Rangers and you are spot on with your facts but as for your comments about benefits and scroungers you are making yourself out to be a bit of a tit. You would definitely not want to be given a government handout of 280 quid a month for doing nothing if that was your total income to spend, so don’t talk sh1te.

  35. Jamie

    Carl31, you make it sound very clear cut that Rangers have run EBT scheme which are outside the law. Strange how HMR&C have now had to go court on 3 or 4 ocassions over the past 2 or 3 years and have not had a clear judgement on the case. This latest case has now taken the best part of a year for the legal professionals adjudicating on it to reach their decision, which is due soon. However, you appear to have read some articles on EBTs and Rangers use of them and have assesed what they did was illegal. A lot of public funds could have been saved by replacing the law lords on the case with you.

    • carl31

      I was pointing out that Andy’s “were all agreed there” sentence was ridiculous. Thanks for helping illustrate that.

    • ecojon

      @ Jamie

      You betray a terrible igniorance of the legal system if you think that the length of time taken to settle a case equates in any way with ‘guilt or innocence’ especially when any judgement will be held as definive for other tax cases.

      There is also the fact that Rangers has appealed at every stage which has somewhat delayed matters.

  36. @Jamie
    If nothing has been established as proven by D&P regarding the amount due to HMRC, how can they legally award a majority voting right to HMRC who single-handedly can determine the outcome of the meeting on 12th October?

    • Jamie

      Hugh, That is exactly how it works. There needs to be a value used and it is normal for the creditor will expect this to be the full value of their claim. The simple answer is HMR&C would have been the majority creditor even based on the £14m debt which Whyte built up therefore no other creditor would challenge this position. We know the £75m case is not finalised therefore it is clear the amount used for voting purposes is based on a potential liability.

      • ecojon

        @ Jamie

        Potential liability indeed! Wonder how you wil rephrase that when it becomes fact. Oh I forgot, it’s a conspiracy 🙂

  37. COYBIG

    Hmm…..seems someone has went to the bother of rating some posts with either tens of ‘thumb ups’ or ‘thumb downs’.

  38. COYBIG

    I wonder who it could be………..

  39. RayCharles

    I suspect the FTT(T) judgment will make clear that RFC(IA) wilfully and knowingly engaged in an illegal tax scam over a 10 year period.

    Not only did the Club know what they were doing was illegal but they went to great lengths to hide it.

    For instance, they deliberately broke SPL and SFA rules about lodging details of player payments as this would have exposed their illegal scam.

    They also shredded paperwork related to the scam, as Alex Thomson of Channel 4 discovered.

    Once the verdict is returned, those trying to downplay the culpability of the Club, and the extent and scale of the illegality involved, will have to come up with some fresh arguments.

    • ecojon

      @ RayCharles

      Sadly they won’t come up with fresh arguments – they will claim it is part of the conspiracy. What a sorry bunch of tax-dodging losers who have stolen from the NHS, schools and benefits.

  40. @Jamie
    What about the claim from Ticketus for £27m. D&P have ‘determined’ that this is not valid and therefore have not awarded them a vote. By your logic they too should have a vote for this amount as, like HMRC, it still constitutes a ‘claim’.

  41. Perhaps everyone should calm down, there is no question of rangers having done anything illegal otherwise a FTTT would not have been the preferred vehicle.

    Rangers are disputing an assessment which the revenue claim is for underpayments and penalties, rangers believe they have not underpaid or are liable for any penalties with regard to EBTs.

    Underpayment of tax is not a crime in this instance and the revenue have never inferred it is, it is to all intents and purposes a tribunal that hinges on the technical execution of said EBTs, they will be found to have been either wrongly or rightly managed with the appropriate if any sanctions handed down by the tribunal.

    As I posted elsewhere the BBC reporting on this matter is somewhat shown as hypocritical after today’s revelations about their own involvement in a huge scale in tax avoidance schemes.

  42. Adam

    If the Sun are ever looking for an up and coming sensationalist writer, then this article may catch their attention.

    Paul is acutely aware that the figure above is an indicative figure which considers maximum penalties and interest.

    The fact remains is that circa £12m of tax debt is real and a further £24m of tax debt is currently being considered in a tribunal. £36m or thereabouts will be the total that, if found “guilty” Whyte and Murray will be responsible for “cheating” the tax man. I hope Whyte gets the jail incidentally and I will await the outcome before commenting on Murray.

    What i find amazing though is that so many people on here and elsewhere have already decided Rangers are guilty in the Big Tax Case (circa £80m of the £94m in this article) yet a very experienced Tax Tribunal have taken almost 2 years now and still havent decided either way if Rangers were guilty.

    Its nice to be back on these shores again. Its as if i havent went away though. Same old mud being slung about with no right to reply without people giving it the thumbs down.

    Its quite pathetic really that people cant have a reasoned debate.

    • It is not a question of guilt, it is a question of possible and perceived liability.

    • ecojon

      @ Andy

      So it would seem that not only do you want a right of reply but a guarantee of a thumbs-up. Paul is very generous and everyone gets their right of reply if they observe some basic decency towards other posters.

      As to a post being liked the only way that can be achieved is to become a dictator of some tin-pot nation but I have the feeling you would still get the thumbs-down on your pronouncements although it would be done behind your back 🙂

  43. Jer

    This is a long post. Bear with me.

    Andy, Riddle me this:

    Firstly, Big up to you coming here to debate the issues. I’ve tried to engage rational bears on various forums and been chased off, flamed, abused, and eventually banned.

    anyway, on to my post:

    Part 1
    EBT’s: EBT’s were legal. They served a valid function. They were for the tax free disbursement of gifts, bonuses, staff parties etc (http://www.thetaxexperts.co.uk/employee-benefit-trusts-and-how-they-work/). Hector challenged their legality in 2010, and commenced proceedings against companies to reclaim lost revenue.

    I don’t think anybody is disputing whether the concept of EBT’s was legal. What IS in dispute is the method of application. If hector can prove that the EBT was used to mitigate tax owed as PAYE and NIC, as he has a right to do, and that such mitigation was unlawful, then they have a right to pursue for lost revenue.

    A quick example from my laymans reading of the situation. Wages/salary are subject to PAYE and NIC, bonuses can be paid up seperately. When a company retains an employee for a salary, a contract is drawn up for remuneration for services. If there are performance related bonuses these will be written into the contract. In the case of a football player, a contract to be available for squad selection week in, week out, is the backbone of the players contract. This salary is subject to PAYE and NIC, etc. A seperate part of the contract will deal with performance bonuses relating to goals scored etc. If I am interpreting this right, said bonuses could legitmately be paid using EBT’s or other tax mitigation vehicles.

    Now in Rangers case, I will discuss certain scenarios (remembering at this point that we have no visibility of contracts or the disbursements of the EBT vehicle).
    (i) All disbursements recorded in a single contract and paid legitimately: If all i’s and t’s were dotted and crossed respectively, then I don’t think HMRC would have relentlessly pursued Rangers for what they believed were taxes owed. There would have been no initial bill for back taxes, and thence no appeal and FTT (remembering that the FTT is an appeals body, meaning rangers are disputing a tax liability determined to be owed by HMRC)
    (ii) Disbursements recorded in multiple contracts but taxes paid correctly:
    Again, if the i’s and t’s ….. then HMRC would not have pursued and so on. This scenario could fall foul of the SFA’s rules re dual contracts if all performance related contracts were no registered correctly.
    (iii) Salary and bonus related disbursements split over multiple contracts, some with PAYE and NIC paid and some disbursed via EBT: In this case, Hector has a right to pursue the PAYE and NIC contributions he believes he is owed. This could also fall foul of SFA dual contracts….
    (iv) Salary disbursed via one contract, bonuses via a second seperate contract: If the salary related contributions were correctly paid and the bonus related taxes correctly mitigated via the EBT, Hector would have moved on, but rangers may still have had to answer for potential dual contracts breach.

    So I ask, which one of these scenarios do you believe occurred? and how do you rationalize that behavior?

    Part 2
    On right of pursuit: The crown prosecution service, has a right to pursue historical breaches of the law and to convict for those breaches, the civil courts have a right of historical pursuit and punishment for civil offenses. As the awarding body for Domestic football, the SFA/SPL/SFL have a similar right to pursue for breaches of their relative rules/articles of association of which clubs are willing signatories and to prosecute for breach.

    Okay, example: A person breaks into a property (willingly commits an act that he knows to be illegitimate) and takes something not owned by himself. He then sells said item to a third party. He then dies. Several things here are true. That the dispossessed are dispossessed, that the person in receipt of the property has no legal right to it and that property can be removed and returned to it’s rightful owner.

    In order for a logical progression certain events must occur in a certain order: Firstly the offense must be proven in order for the transfer of ownership from the rightful owner to the offender be deemed illegitimate, in order that that property gain a certain legal status so that subsequent transfers of ownership be deemed invalid. Secondly the perceived true owner must establish that he was the rightful owner. Without the offense being proven, the chain of custody becomes a disputed issue.

    To relate this to the rangers case:

    HMRC believe they have been defrauded of PAYE and NIC. They must first establish that an act of fraud has been committed (read tax bill and appeal to FTT) in order to make a claim for the funds defrauded to be released to them (their share of the CVA).

    SFA/SPL: Firstly they must establish that an offense was committed (read investigation into dual contracts, EBT’s and conscious non payment of tax liabilities owed as breaches to their relative rules and articles) before they can pursue for the correction of their historical records (results of games). They could then potentially amend said records and award certain recognitions to other participants.

    A couple of things to remember here that never seem to get a mention anywhere. In sports, when one wins something, all you win is the right to be recognized by the adjudicating and awarding body for the result of the competition. The adjudicating/awarding body retains the records, not the participant. When you say you won a competition, you are claiming the right to recognition that the awarding body for that competition recognizes you as the victor. The awarding body is free to amend those records according to their rules.

    So I ask…. as rangers were signatories of the rules and articles of the SFA and SPL, that they are the recognized awarding bodies for those competitions… do you dispute the right of the SFA and SPL to investigate whether it’s participants played by the rules?

    Part 3
    Independent Investigation:
    Any person has the right to independently pursue investigation of public records for any reason, given the rights of free speech, and to draw legitimate conclusions from that investigation. Let us take an historic example: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein systematically dismantled the Nixon administration through years of relentless research, pulling on every flimsy thread to build up their case in the public and legal eye. They were harassed, subverted, threatened and at all times resisted by the Government and mainstream media of the time. eventually when the boulder they were pushing picked up enough speed they nudged in the direction of the target of the target and brought down a government. In no way could any right thinking person who believes in the rights of a free media dispute that what they did was not in the public interest. What they achieved was to bring offenses into the light for which people were later prosecuted, and correct the historical record of events. I suggest you read a book called “All the Presidents Men”, a seminal piece on the effectiveness of free speech.

    Whether you like it or not, this can be directly compared with the collapse of Rangers. Whether you approve or not of the methodology employed, it can be argued that Rangers was brought low by the right to free speech. However the process is not yet complete. The historical record has yet to be addressed and corrected if appropriate, and a span of time must elapse to allow for the stabilization of emotion to allow for all sides to step back and assess where they are post debacle.

    Do you dispute the right of the individual to pursue these events in the public’s interest?

    You have a go at people who avail themselves of various social supports. For me this is a black and white issue. Do you accept that socialized constructs (NHS, social welfare, housing etc.) are good for society as a whole? In order to protect the true and rightful recipients of those benefits we provide structures which are open to abuse funded through our taxes. To indiscriminately abuse those in receipt of various forms of assistance, is to abuse the system as a whole.

    anyway. I am a layperson here. I do believe that this saga is far from over… While I feel for the pain of the fans of Rangers fans at the mishandling of their club, I also believe that the issue must be pursued to death for all the reasons espoused in earlier comments, in order that an act of egregious breach of the principles of sport and of defrauding the public purse be investigated fully and truly, so that all of the participants in said acts be dragged kicking and screaming into the light to receive their just desserts.


    • Jer

      apologies. in retrospect and on farther reading, I think my EBT section may be a misinterpretation of how they are to be applied and should be taken with a grain of salt as I am a lay person and not a financial expert.

      • Andy


        Right okay, I will hold my hands up and say if incorrectly administering an ebt is illegal then fair enough I will happily take your word for that. However, I do still stand by the point that Rangers did not intentionally embark on illegal scheme through design, in order to screw scottish football and the taxman. Bad advise, or badly implemented advise has meant that Rangers have badly administered the scheme and thus appear (as yet not proven) to have broken the law, and therefore are subject to a cliam for tax on those funds.

        The accusation that Rangers designed a way to cheat so that they cuold afford top players doesnt cut it for me. This sort of accusation is the work of conspiracy theorists, not realists. Rangers failed to administrate the scheme correctly either via negligence, bad advise or poor corporate manager that meant staff were not briefed correctly on how to process ebts.

        So as for the actual case, Rangers either adminstered it correctly or they did not, nothing that exciting – Lets say they do win the case, what are they going to write about on here??

        I personally think that in 2010 the greater public interest was served by hmrc when they closed such schemes. If Rangers lose the case it certifies the legitmacy of the bill, therefore Im not sure what steps they can take, but hmrc appear to beleive that they can pursue ex-directors for the funds, so yeah worth a shot, though assumin murray is the one being pursued, his comany is now part owned (25% i think) by lloyds who are majority owned by the british taxpayer and aren’t exactly thriving so the chances of hmrc being able to recover even a fraction of the money does appear slim, if they win the case of course……

        In fact if someone could enlighten us to what routes hmrc can take to pursue murray, cw and co?

        As much as it may be a nice thought to many that ‘justice’ will be served for the adminstrative errors, I think this will be fanciful at best..

        NHS yes, though needs to be better managed.

        Housing yes, everyone deserves a house over their head

        Social welfare, no. I don’t think the social welfare system is anything to be proud of…in fact it’s so open to abuse we seen a lithunian family come over and get a free house and free money having never contributed a penny to this country…We hand out free methadone prescriptions as if its something to be proud of…..Personally, I think the whole social welfare system needs ripped apart and started again, food vouchers, gas/elec direct support yes, I would like to see, people want the luxuries in life then go work for them!! No more free money for me.

        • @Andy

          Andy you again have missed the opportunity to provide reasoned opinion as laid out by Jer.

          He has offerd in his narrative options for you to either agreed, disagree or discuss the merits of. You have chosen to ignore his presentations which are logical, thought through and in no means “having a go at Rangers” they merely lay out different senarios for you or your bear friends to enjoin in debate rather than the petty snipping that has taken up the majority of the last 20 or so posts.

          Your acceptence seems to be that for years MIH for that is who the EBT scheme is aimed at not RFC were ill advised and badly managed. Quite a sweeping accusation if true against DM and his companies.

          A few points that maybe you should be aware of. I have pointed out in previous postings that long ago I knew DM before he achieved the lofty position he now appears to hold. It was in Edinburgh Meggatland pub called the Glencraig. He was a frequent vistitor and socialiser and we enjoyed many pleasant evenings together in the company of others.

          At the time his passion was basketball and business, he had quite a knack for spotting a deal as I now realise in hindsight. He was interested in the national and international potential for basketball as there was at the time an emerging European league with the revenue streams that are attached to it. Scotland at the time did not have a particularly strong presence if any and the main team at the time were Boroughmuir Barrs, hence his association with the local as many of them drank (including the pub owner, Ally Carmichael who was also a player), there being the only reasonable pub in the locus. He took this bunch under his wing and transformed them into MIM which were then recognised through sponsorship et al and thrust onto the international stage. I am sure you will remember then if not then I bet even now they show in google somewhere.

          At the same time he was developing his business interests and believe you me he was most certainly correctly advised when he established almost overnight the MIH based out at Newbridge and then subsequently South Gyle. A fool he most certainly is not and he has ALWAYS listened to and sought the best financial and legal advice available in my experience and history I am sure reflects that.

          He created numerous “shell” companies and I know this to be true as at least 4 and maybe 6 of the locals were transformed overnight into BMW driving MD’s of empty industrial units in the Newbridge site. The reason was simple, he was revolving “deals” through the companies and earning on each of them, buying and selling within the group as well as outside.

          Nothing illegal of course but maybe just not moral as it meant that taxes and VAT were shall we say reduced. His empire quickly grew, however one thing that is very important is that he was not using the company money to fund this, he was using the banks, always the banks. He will have secured some of the liability with MIH assets I am sure, however he has very rarely put his “own” neck on the line shall we say.

          He has always been provided and taken top advice, look how he managed even now with RFC to leave the banks paid up in full. How many businesses do you know that fail not owing the banks a single penny AND have money in the bank account???? I would hazard a guess at none.

          If you correctly assume that DM was badly advised then it will have gone against everything in the histroy of his business career. On the contrary I believe he was most ably and correctly advised.

          Markets rise and fall and you claim that world economics have hit MIH.

          I disagree. His main business is buying and selling metals, principally steel. The cost for this commodity has maintained its market price AND increased with trading being very healthy. The take up of finished products HAS dropped but given the diversification of the group and its structure then there is no doubt that it is more than capable of survival.

          I know this because I also have an interest in this business.

          However this assumes that all in the past has been ok with the group. The restructuring of finance for the group including RFC and the withdrawal of many tax loop holes have meant that for the first time MIH HAS to conduct business on an even playing field with many of his competitors. Not a comfotable situation but one he has to assume.

          I have not taken time to go into the dealings behind closed doors with the banks on the land banks of South Gyle and Newbridge principally although there were others, which were aquired by MIH in the knowledge that expansion and development into the previous “brown field” land would be agreed and overnight provide all the security needed for the banks and MIH to go forward, not to mention a healthy lump of cash in his pocket.

          Your ascertion that MIH/RFC and DM were badly managed/advised or were just down right unlucky in the current economic climate is IMHO totally flawed and incorrect.

          I will not, just now, metion either the responsibility of the various directors AND shareholders that have a legal responsibility to ensure that EVERYTHING is correctly adhered to both in the football capacity ie dual contracts and the running of the business. Not every single one of them could possibly state that they were unaware of what was or was not going on. If they are found guilty subsequently of poor individual management then they can be struck off, prevented from holding directorships again, or prosecuted in criminal courts. These are serious claims to make and it seems that at least in part you are agreeing that the likes of John Greig and David King are culpable as well as DM and CW.

          There is more to this than meets the eye, and while I have some sympathy that RFC supporters have been caught up in it, as you said in response to an earlier post, “why should you feel ashamed” then if you cannot grasp the worth of this Blog for the work it does to continue the seeking of “justice” against the corporate animal.

          You should also be aware that I did not know that TRFC were beaten on Saturday until late on Sunday as I am “that interested” in TRFC. I really don t care how or what the team do so long as its within the same rules and regs as every other team in whatever league, division or country they choose to play in. I am not “obsessed” with TRFC, I follow my own team and that’s good enough for me.

          Now why don t you and some of your bear buddies take some time to read Jers’ post and answer some of his points as laid out.

          It would be better spent than getting thumbs up or down as expressed here before on previous posts no one is really that interested in how many TU/TD there are ………its the content and discussion and the investigative points that are of interest not TRFC…………we leave that topic to the MSM.

          • Andy


            Another veiled attack on here….sigh. Here we go, I gave Jer his place and agreed with him that he had better researched the legality of ebts and how they are run, therefore if Rangers had run it incorrectly then it may well be illegal, if proven guilty.

            You see, every businessman in his live will make a bad deal or take bad advise, there are too many vultures after a slice of the ppie, circlinground where the money is (I beleive 3 of the 5 out of Dragons Den have run businesses that have been declared bankrupt at some point), yet they are all equally if not more astitute than DM. Just because the legal and financial advise was the most expensive doesnt necessarily mean it was the best!!, perhaps the porn star wasnt the best option…

            So your assumption is that DM never ever ever EVER took bad advise, so for that to be fact he would not have taken advise to imlement something that was illegal? do you agree? So the advise on the ebt would have been fine, DM would have had it correctly implemented, and really there need be little to worry about in relation to the big tax case?

            Or, are you now assuming that DM is a saint in all this and it was all the other directors fault, because DM would never take bad advise, therefore at the end of it all, those other directors should be struck off??

            Im not really sure what angle your coming at here, but it seems to be a defense of DM business dealings, yet the man himself admitted to being duped, and if he wasnt and knew more then he certainly did not listen to his colleagues when selling to CW?

            I am saying that DM embarked on a legal scheme that was either badly implemented or bad advise…….if you are saying it’s not this, are you saying that DM took advise to imlpement an illegal scheme knowing that it was illegal?

            His assets dropped 100m below the value if his debt, this is why the bank now own 25% of MIH….hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the price of steel!!

            • @Andy
              first please dont take it that I am “attacking you ” veiled or otherwise. I am like Jer was interested to hear yours and other bears thoughts on the variety of options laid out by Jer. I am genuinely interested to hear from you and have expressed that on previous occasions. Jers’ points are reasoned and have very valid points. There are many people here who express opinions and it is interesting to gain “the other side” as I don t have any local RFc fans I can discuss with and I am not welcomed on any of the Rangers Media sites so its difficult to maintain a balanced position. I have always valued contributions from both sides in any situation and continue to do so. There are many points for example that I disagree with that are expressed by EJ and I have explored these with him and others here. As we are dealing in many points on here about

              If you feel that I have “attacked ” you then I unreservedly apologise as it was definately NOT indended to appear that way. I have not and do not indend that my comments attack RFC either. My main purpose is the establishment of true fact and justice for all parties and that includes RFC supporters as well as all the other clubs.

              I am certainly NOT defending or supporting DM and would go as far as to suggest that he has for a very long time been duping many people including you and your fellow supporters, maybe some of the less business minded individuals such as John Greig, who I still admire as a footballer even though life long CFC fan.

              I was merely laying out the short past history of DM and what he achieved, and in some way HOW he achieved it.

              I agree that expensive advice is not necessarily the best but it does stretch the imagination to assume that over years they were all that bad, maybe you are correct and it was a badly managed but again I doubt it to the extent it “appears to have been.

              I want like you to find the true culprits and have them answer for there actions…….ALL of them.

            • for indend pls read intend…..numpty!

            • Andy


              Thanks, with jer i was just trying to put as to why something like this has/can happen..

              My opinion is that rangers were not run deliberatly Breaking any law. I might be wrong but given dm other business interests it appears unlikely that he would risk being struck off.

              So it only really leaves a couple of other scenarios and these are, bad advise or wrongly adminstered….i may be being stupid here but i genuinely cant think of another scenario that would have lead to the tax case.

              And with respect to that, it then becomes a fairly boring story, the juicy bit of rangers has already happened…..mite be more under green but who knows…but im not sure what the expectancy level is of people, but i have a gut feeling it probably wont be satisfied…

            • Andy the “tax case” bit has been going on for years, when I was working in England had a guy, actually RFC fan, who was punting the EBT’s for various clubs but specifically Chelsea and their youth signings, and you know all about the connections there, he was also an agent.

              The revenue even then were chasing the clubs for payment and mismanagement of the schemes so its not a new thing.

              The mismanagement is a reasonable excuse but truthfully as an ex IFA these trusts, and I effected a few on weathy estates, were simple to run and difficult to mess up as they basically have money in, normally single lump sum and then the beneficiary draws what he needs when they want it with the approval of the trustees, who never refuse. Thats it. The trusts were mainly used to avoid long term health care costs and protect the assets of individuals.

              Its only when it relates to money that should be paid as PAYE that these clubs, and most are English, get it messed up. RFC is a test case but all the English clubs are now or have voluntraily paying up on the quiet.

              RFC were the “minnow club” and Scottish courts seen as good test ground to establish the precedent in law, thats why its taking so long to decide on the appeal.

              On the RFC side CG has not done you any favours with either the authorites or other clubs fan base but hopefully now he will shut up and get on with just building whatever it is he wants and the team can play football. That I honestly think is the wish of most people. There will be more fall out to come but hopefully however bitter a pill it is ….its taken swallowed and back to business as usual.

        • Jer


          I may have been beating around the bush in my last post. One of the main reasons I’ve entered this debate was to address the core issues where rangers have been accused of erring, and to address how they move on from that. A negotiated middle ground of reasoned voices is the only sensible solution.

          Like it or not, the EBT issue is a moral issue from the sporting point of view. Whether or not tax mitigating strategies and the financial advantages that ensue are just and fair across the sport as a whole. The legal aspect of tax mitigation is between the individual business and HMRC. The SFA will become interested if a club is found not to have paid up it’s taxes in full, as it affects licensing issues, both SFA and UEFA I believe.

          How the EBT’s were employed, the relationship between Rangers PLC and MIH, corporate governance, corporate liability are all technical issues which shall in due course be investigated.

          The crux of the matter for me is the dual contracts issue. Here was an issue that was clearly delineated in the Articles of Association of the SFA and rules of the SPL. I don’t think the language could be any clearer. If side and second contracts were issued, then this was a clear breach of said rules. This act MUST have been committed knowingly and with malice of forethought, and could not possibly be explained away by saying that “we didn’t know/we received bad advice”. For this to be true means that there was at some level, a decision made to deliberately circumvent the rules of the competition of which the club were signatory.

          There is only one word for that. And that is “Cheating”. At this point these breaches have only officially been alleged.

          Now logically, following from my previous post, this issue must be charged and proven. Once that is done, the historical record can be addressed.

          The reason why I attempt to engage with Rangers fans on these issues, is that whether they like it or not, the general rangers fanbase will have to accept (if said charges are proven) that their club actively cheated their opposition on and off the field of play.

          I said a few months ago on RangersMedia before i got banned, that one simple avenue for rangers to exploit to move on from this debacle existed. To willingly open up it’s books for investigation, to cooperate with said investigation, and where necessary to apologize for any breaches of the rules from which it gained advantage. To willingly offer up any titles gained illegitimately, and with these actions regain the moral high ground and move on.

          However, the screaming rhetoric of the WATP fanbase won’t allow that as it would be seen as a capitulation for which they are not best, emotionally speaking, prepared. Said fanbase MUST at some level accept that other fans also have a right to feel aggrieved for the actions of the corporate masters of RFC. Only then can a middle path though these murky waters be navigated.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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