Legal Framework the for Winding Up of the ex-Rangers Football Club PLC

In light of last night’s Mark Daly revelations about Mr Whyte recording David Grier of D&P making allegedly incriminating admissions, I wanted to list the rules and regs and procedures to be followed regarding the liquidation process.

I hope this might be of some assistance!


The starting point was the “virtual” creditors’ meeting on 12th October. The creditors were to vote on two resolutions, the terms of which are noted below.

From Duff and Phelps’ Final Report to Creditors (accessible via

15. Resolutions

The following resolutions are proposed by the Joint Administrators and should be voted upon using the form at Appendix 8.


15.1 That the Creditors approve the remuneration, expenses and outlays of the Joint Administrators in respect of all accounting periods not previously approved, being, in respect of remuneration only, £2,930,644 for the period 14 February 2012 to 29 June 2012 and £191,039 for the period 10 August 2012 to 14 September 2012.


15.2 Without prejudice and subject to (i) the statutory priority in respect of the Joint Administrators’ remuneration and expenses under paragraph 99 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and (ii) the determination of any appeal or application by the Joint Administrators to the Court under the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 for determination of their remuneration and fees to the extent that these have not been agreed by the Creditors;

(1) that the Joint Administrators do make an immediate application to the Court seeking the discharge of the Administration Order in accordance with paragraph 79 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, and;

(2) to seek the winding up of the Company in accordance with section 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986.


Following the “meeting” the BBC reported here on 17th October:-

The former Rangers Football Club is to be put into liquidation after creditors approved an end to the administration process which began on 14 February.

Administrators Duff and Phelps will now apply to the Court of Session to have BDO appointed as liquidators.

Announcing moves to end the administration period, joint administrator Paul Clark said: “Creditors have today given their approval for the administrators to bring the administration process to an end and to place the company into liquidation.

“As a result, we as administrators have instructed our legal team to prepare the necessary application for lodging in the Court of Session as a matter of urgency.

“Should the application be approved, then Malcolm Cohen and James Bernard Stephen of BDO will be appointed liquidators of RFC 2012 plc, and will undertake the process of liquidation of the ‘oldco’ company and the continued recovery of funds for creditors.”

Mr Clark said the administration process had been “comparatively short” and had been handled by Duff and Phelps to “the highest professional standards”.

“We have co-operated fully with inquiries into our appointment by Lord Hodge at the Court of Session and the Insolvency Practitioners’ Association,” he added.


Now you will note that he addresses the outcome of the meeting as regards part of the application before the meeting but …

No mention of fees!

Did the creditors approve or reject the fees of over £3.1 million?

As D&P are not saying, we might just have to await the matter going into open court.


The statutory process involves two elements – the first is exit from administration, and the second is the step into liquidation.

The relevant legislation is the Insolvency Act 1986.

The rules for “Discharge of Administration” are contained in Rule 79 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act. Extracts are below.

Court ending administration on application of administrator

79 (1) On the application of the administrator of a company the court may provide for the appointment of an administrator of the company to cease to have effect from a specified time.

(3) The administrator of a company shall make an application under this paragraph if—

(a) the administration is pursuant to an administration order, and

(b) the administrator thinks that the purpose of administration has been sufficiently achieved in relation to the company.

(4) On an application under this paragraph the court may—

(a) adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally;

(b) dismiss the application;

(c) make an interim order;

(d) make any order it thinks appropriate (whether in addition to, in consequence of or instead of the order applied for).


As far as liquidation, or winding-up, goes, this too is governed by the Insolvency Act. Section 124 lays down the formalities of an application for winding up.

124 Application for winding up.

(1)   Subject to the provisions of this section, an application to the court for the winding up of a company shall be by petition presented either by the company, or the directors, or by any creditor or creditors (including any contingent or prospective creditor or creditors), contributory or contributories or by a liquidator (within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the EC Regulation) appointed in proceedings by virtue of Article 3(1) of the EC Regulation or a temporary administrator (within the meaning of Article 38 of the EC Regulation) or by the designated officer for a magistrates’ court in the exercise of the power conferred by section 87A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (enforcement of fines imposed on companies)], or by all or any of those parties, together or separately.

Subsection 1 is the only relevant part for this purpose. The application to wind up the company is being presented by D&P who are acting as the company.


Liquidation procedure is contained in the Act.

Section 122

Circumstances in which company may be wound up by the court.

(1)   A company may be wound up by the court if—

(f) the company is unable to pay its debts,

(fa) at the time at which a moratorium for the company under section 1A comes to an end, no voluntary arrangement approved under Part I has effect in relation to the company

(g) the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.

(2) In Scotland, a company which the Court of Session has jurisdiction to wind up may be wound up by the Court if there is subsisting a floating charge over property comprised in the company’s property and undertaking, and the court is satisfied that the security of the creditor entitled to the benefit of the floating charge is in jeopardy.

For this purpose a creditor’s security is deemed to be in jeopardy if the Court is satisfied that events have occurred or are about to occur which render it unreasonable in the creditor’s interests that the company should retain power to dispose of the property which is subject to the floating charge.


Presumably the application would be under S122 (f) (fa) and/or (g) or any combination of them.


As far as appointment of a liquidator goes, it is a “few step” process.

Section 135 Appointment and powers of provisional liquidator.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the court may, at any time after the presentation of a winding-up petition, appoint a liquidator provisionally.

(3) In Scotland, such an appointment may be made at any time before the first appointment of liquidators.

(4) The provisional liquidator shall carry out such functions as the court may confer on him.

(5) When a liquidator is provisionally appointed by the court, his powers may be limited by the order appointing him.


Section 138 Appointment of liquidator in Scotland.

(1) Where a winding-up order is made by the court in Scotland, a liquidator shall be appointed by the court at the time when the order is made.

(2) The liquidator so appointed (here referred to as “the interim liquidator”) continues in office until another person becomes liquidator in his place under this section or the next.

(3) The interim liquidator shall (subject to the next subsection) as soon as practicable in the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the winding-up order was made or such longer period as the court may allow, summon separate meetings of the company’s creditors and contributories for the purpose of choosing a person (who may be the person who is the interim liquidator) to be liquidator of the company in place of the interim liquidator.

(4) If it appears to the interim liquidator, in any case where a company is being wound up on grounds including its inability to pay its debts, that it would be inappropriate to summon under subsection (3) a meeting of the company’s contributories, he may summon only a meeting of the company’s creditors for the purpose mentioned in that subsection.

(5) If one or more meetings are held in pursuance of this section but no person is appointed or nominated by the meeting or meetings, the interim liquidator shall make a report to the court which shall appoint either the interim liquidator or some other person to be liquidator of the company.

(6) A person who becomes liquidator of the company in place of the interim liquidator shall, unless he is appointed by the court, forthwith notify the court of that fact.


Therefore, on D&P applying to the court for winding-up, the court would normally order publication of a notice in the Edinburgh Gazette, and Herald or Scotsman. The court could appoint a “provisional liquidators” under s135 at that stage.

The case would come back to court after at least 8 days since publication of the notices has passed, and at that stage the court can grant the winding-up order, and appoint an “interim liquidator”.

The interim liquidator has a duty to summons a creditors’ meeting to appoint a liquidator.

The provisional, interim and “full” liquidators can all be the same person.


The detailed rules regarding the winding up procedure, as regards the winding up order and appointments, are contained in Chapter 74 of the Rules of the Court of Session.



Interpretation of this Part

74.20. In this Part, “the petition” means a petition under section 124 of the Act of 1986 (petition to wind up a company).

Petition to wind up a company

74.21.-(1) The petition shall include averments in relation to-

(a) the petitioner, if other than the company, and his title to present the petition;

(b) in respect of the company-

(i) its current and any previous registered name;

(ii) the address of its registered office, and any previous such address within six months immediately before the presentation of the petition so far as known to the petitioner;

(iii) a statement of the nature of its business and objects, the amount of its capital (nominal and issued) indicating what part is called up, paid up or credited as paid up, and the amount of the assets of the company so far as known to the petitioner;

(iv) where the centre of main interests of the company is and whether the company has any other establishments in another Member State;

(c) whether, to the knowledge of the petitioner, a receiver has been appointed in respect of any part of the property of the company or a liquidator has been appointed for the voluntary winding up of the company;

(d) the grounds on which the petition proceeds; and

(e) the name and address of the person proposed to be appointed, and his qualification to act, as interim liquidator;

(f) whether there are insolvency proceedings elsewhere in respect of the company and whether those proceedings are main or territorial proceedings.


Intimation, service and advertisement under this Part

74.22.- (1) Unless the court otherwise directs, the order under rule 14.5(first order in petitions) for intimation, service and advertisement of the petition shall include a requirement-

(a) to serve the petition-

(i) where the petitioner is not the company, on the company;

(ii) where the company is being wound up voluntarily and a liquidator has been appointed, on the liquidator; and

(iii) where a receiver or administrator has been appointed, on the receiver or administrator, as the case may be;

(c) to advertise the petition forthwith-

(i) once in the Edinburgh Gazette; and

(ii) once in one or more of such newspapers as the court shall direct.

(2) Subject to rule 14.6(2) (application to shorten or extend the period of notice), the period of notice for lodging answers to the petition shall be 8 days.

(3) An advertisement under paragraph (1) shall include-

(a) the name and address of the petitioner and, where the petitioner is the company, its registered office;

(b) the name and address of the agent for the petitioner;

(c) the date on which the petition was presented;

(d) the nature of the order sought;

(e) where a provisional liquidator has been appointed by the court, his name, address and the date of his appointment;

(f) the period of notice for lodging answers; and

(g) a statement that any person who intends to appear in the petition must lodge answers within the period of notice.

Provisional liquidator

74.25.- (1) An application to appoint a provisional liquidator under section 135 of the Act of 1986 may be made- (a) by the petitioner, in the prayer of the petition or, if made after the petition has been presented, by note; or

(b) by a creditor or contributory of the company, the company, the Secretary of State, a member State liquidator appointed in main proceedings or a person entitled under any enactment to present a petition, by note.

(2) The application mentioned in paragraph (1) shall include averments in relation to-

(a) the grounds for the appointment of the provisional liquidator;

(b) the name and address of the person proposed to be appointed, and his qualification to act, as provisional liquidator; and

(c) whether, to the knowledge of the applicant, an administrator has been appointed to the company or a receiver has been appointed in respect of any part of its property or a liquidator has been appointed voluntarily to wind it up.

(3) Where the court decides to appoint a provisional liquidator-

(a) it shall pronounce an interlocutor making the appointment and specifying the functions to be carried out by him in relation to the affairs of the company; and

(b) the applicant shall forthwith send a certified copy of such interlocutor to the person appointed.

(4) On receiving a certified copy of an interlocutor pronounced under paragraph (3), the provisional liquidator shall intimate his appointment forthwith-

(a) once in the Edinburgh Gazette; and

(b) once in one or more of such newspapers as the court has directed.

(5) An application for the discharge of a provisional liquidator shall be made by note.


Appointment of a liquidator

74.26.- (1) Where the court pronounces an interlocutor appointing a liquidator-

(a) the Deputy Principal Clerk shall send a certified copy of that interlocutor to the liquidator;

(b) the court may, for the purposes of rule 4.18(4) of the Insolvency Rules (liquidator to give notice of appointment), give such direction as it thinks fit as to advertisement of such appointment.

(2) An application to appoint a liquidator under section 139(4) of the Act of 1986 shall be made by note.


Finally, from Companies House –

Chapter 6 – Compulsory liquidation

1. What is ‘compulsory liquidation’?

Compulsory liquidation of a company is when the company is ordered by a court to be wound up.

2. Which courts can order a compulsory liquidation?

The Court of Session, or Sheriff Court with the appropriate jurisdiction, may order the winding-up of a company. This may be, for example, on the petition of a creditor or creditors on the grounds that the company cannot pay its debts.

A company is regarded as unable to pay its debts if, for example, a creditor:

  • is owed more than £750;
  • presents a written demand in the prescribed form (known as a statutory demand (Form 4.1 (Scot)) to the company; and
  • the company fails to pay, secure or agree a settlement of the debt to the creditor’s reasonable satisfaction.

The court may also order the company to be wound up on the petition of:

  • the company itself;
  • the company’s directors or one or more members;
  • the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; or
  • the Financial Services Authority (formerly the Securities and Investment Board).

3. Must the petition be advertised?

Unless the court directs other arrangements, the petition must be advertised in the Edinburgh Gazette.

4. What appears on the company record held by Companies House?

If the petition is successful, the company must send Form 4.2 (Scot) and a copy of the winding-up order to the Registrar of Companies for Scotland and AIB straightaway and it will be placed on the company’s public record.

The petition itself is not presented to the Registrar of Companies for Scotland so it will not appear on the public records.

5. Who acts as the liquidator when an order is made to wind up the company?

A provisional liquidator may be appointed after the petition is presented. If a winding up order is made, an interim liquidator is appointed. Both the provisional and interim liquidator must notify the Registrar of Companies for Scotland and AIB of their appointments.

6. What are the duties of the interim liquidator?

Within 28 days of the appointment, the interim liquidator investigates the company’s affairs and will call meetings of creditors and contributories (that is, those people liable to contribute to the assets of a company in the event of it being wound up). The meetings appoint the official liquidator who must notify AIB within 7 days. If no liquidator is appointed at the meetings, the court appoints a liquidator.

The liquidator must send to AIB a statement of receipts and payments for the first 12 months of liquidation and thereafter every 6 months until the winding up is complete.

7. What happens when the winding-up is complete?

When the Registrar of Companies for Scotland and AIB receive notice from the liquidator of the final meeting that winding-up is complete, the Registrar of Companies for Scotland will register it and publish its receipt in the Edinburgh Gazette.

Unless the Court directs otherwise, the company will be dissolved three months after the notice was registered at Companies House Edinburgh.

If the liquidator is satisfied that the company’s realisable assets (that is, assets which could be sold or disposed of to raise money) will not cover the expenses of winding-up and that no further investigation of the company’s affairs is necessary, he or she may apply to the Registrar of Companies for Scotland for early dissolution of the company. The company will be dissolved 3 months after the application is registered at Companies House Edinburgh


All in all therefore we still have a couple of weeks, most likely, until the petition to wind up Rangers Football Club PLC (as it formerly was) owing over £100 million is dealt with.

Anyone expecting quick results by BDO will be disappointed. The liquidators will pore and trawl through everything to see what they should devote attention to. Liquidations of a company, especially where there is a possible case of wrong-doing by the company, directors or management, can take years before taking action

Vital Security was Craig Whyte’s company in connection with which he was barred from holding a directorship for 7 years in 2000. It took 5 years for the directorship ban to be put in place, following the winding up of the company!

Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Courts, Insolvency Act 1986, Rangers, Uncategorized

32 responses to “Legal Framework the for Winding Up of the ex-Rangers Football Club PLC

  1. so, we still have two “rangers” !?

  2. mcfc

    Any comments on how liquidation might impact the IPO. I assume BDO would not want to have to unpick an IPO after a year or two in order to reverse the sale to Green. Is it possible for BDO to make initial indications regarding gratuitous alienation – casting doubt on Green’s ownership?

    • Joe

      So Rangers fans interested in “investing” in share issue will then see this much needed capital…used to pay the then deemed reasonable price between Green and BDO for the assets which will in time then involve the revealing of a discharging of Whyte’s security. Bet the fans will be happy, club saved and they’ve lined Whyte’s pockets.

  3. ecojon

    @ jimlarkin2012

    At a Bear minimum I would conclude 🙂

  4. mick

    @paul great read paul although a would have to read it a couple of times before a could quote from it but it does seem as if its going to take years for the outcomes ,hopefully the taxman wont be as slow and we can see some criminal charges heading the way of former directors of oldco for tax cheating its a right mess from every angle .

  5. JohnBhoy

    Craig’s winding up his tapes.

  6. JimBhoy

    Wonder much HMRC would get for Castle Grant… It’s no as if Whyte can put it in his wife’s name..

  7. JimBhoy
    This was Craigie Bhoys school, check out the notable alumni… 🙂

  8. JimBhoy

    @Jono Oh I have no doubt he has his assets and wealth hidden well off the radar 😉 I wonder if he pays any UK tax, I bet if he does he pays less than you or I… Shyster.

  9. Great read, though, like an earlier contributor, I would have to read it again to fully understand it. However, I would like to pick up a point made by mcfc ‘gratuitous alienation’. Here’s the scenario. The possibility is highlighted in the prospectus and for this reason and possibly many others, institutional investors want nothing to do with the IPO. Normally, that would mean that personal investors would not take it up. However, in this case we have people who will invest with their hearts and may take up the whole £22m. After the IPO, BDO come along and ‘take back’ the assets. Rangers then fold and the supporters £22m is lost. I am not saying any of this will happen, but it might. Should not someone act to delay the IPO or BDO (when appointed) act very quickly to at least give some idea of their thinking. AND should not the MSM be warning on this matter, indeed I am surprised that nice Mr Traynor has not pursued this. My concern is that the ordinary Rangers supporter is getting involved with something not many of us understand and could stand to lose money almost as soon as they have parted with it rather that some time down the line having taken a commercial risk. It’s one thing backing a horse and losing, it’s quite another if the horse was lame before the race.

    • lawheid

      Here’s the thing, Violet – if the supporters put £22 mil into the newco, then the assets sale reversed, would Ticketus pocket the money? I think they would, as well as Whyte having his floating charge getting paid off.

  10. JimBhoy

    @Violet I speculated similar yesterday, the money will be lost, disposed of in a way that tracing it is damn near impossible… However how many times have you seen a rangers fan refer to ANYONE who questions anything of the nature of this posting on this site and others as ‘Obsessed’…

    The whole things stinks, D&P liars, Chico Liar, facts all over the place to show that not to mention a whole lot of legal uncertainties over the purchase, over newco/oldco so my thought is anyone who thinks this is a good investment should go for it, there is loving and supporting your club and there is damn stupidity…You will soon be a creditor.

    The men who have a track record at buying and killing off businesses to make a buck, knowing how to play the game to the detriment of the honest worker/supporter will always gain and will always have a get out and spin…

    The article on the kerrydale site from the FOI Strathclyde police shows that they are lying about attendance figures (+10,000) in one case and Chico’s £17m pledged is also pie in the sky.. All spin to dupe the fans…. The fans lapping it up without asking questions, more fool them… My url post from last night.. below

    • Sorry, I missed your post, but repetition on this point only serves to reinforce what is a real concern for decent minded people. I think my real point is that this is preventable and the MSM should be doing their job.

      • ecojon

        @ Violet Carson

        The MSM have basically been sandbagged by Whyte – the cozy relationship which has existed for years has been blown asunder as they frantically try and remember what songs they sang in the past and whether it’s on tape or not.

        Jabba’s piece in the Record is terrible and smacks of having a very unsympathetic sub-editing job done on it. And the way he ends about questions needing to be asked is pathetic. What was he getting paid for all these years?

        Whatever BDO does it will be years away. The only thing that could happen quickly IMHO is Lord Hodge next week or D&P who will already have a team here from their US corporate HQ. They are quite capable of amputating the British end of the business which they bought less than a year ago on 31 October 2011.

        American Corporates have absolutely no hesitation or feelings in acting fast and heavy because it’s what their American market would expect them to do. If they don’t there will be thoughts that the problem has spread from London to the US and that will not be allowed to take root.

        They might wait to see what Hodge does but if they amputate before then then they take the moral high-ground and that is the ground they want to be standing on when the dust settles.

  11. mick

    @viloet carson ‘gratuitous alienation’ is reality here as its a under value sale rfc will still exist but bdo might want the ipo money to cover the amount they see fit to charge green, either way the bears are going to get fleeced the best thing that could happen for a ordinary fan is bdo take club back restart admin sell to knights who would govern with there hearts and would have rangers future at heart, if a was a bear a would be up in arms at d&d as they new it was green and all offers were doomed before they started its all a con from the start although am celtic and would love to see tesco at the end of the day you have to feel sorry for small share holders and creditors who have been well and truely shafted there is criminality in it all as well so a think there is going to be a sentence soon for them all as its the taxman that has been shafted to and lets not forget the sfa are well in on it so its well messy and needs a independent goverment inquirey to preserve scottish business integrity as the whole world is watching and this could damage inward investment alex shalmond hang your head in shame (the fabric of our nation ) then this happens

  12. mick

    @jimbhoy move along now declan nothing to see here

  13. 5 yrs is a relatively short period of time……many of the “culprits” if there are any of course could well be the same as old RFC ……..zombiefied…..

    As an aside nice article on this site re all the spin from CG re records and the loyal at Ibrox, interesting reading and the truth again, not provided by MSM and again they are sure to hide their collective heads in the sand again.

    Enjoy all.

  14. ecojon

    I see that Spreckley Partners now appear to be doing PR for D&P (

    Their website says it all:

    ‘WE ARE MASTERS OF THE MEDIA; organisers par excellence; dreamers, writers and designers; charmers of birds out of trees and experts in all forms of communications related to public relations’.

    They must cause a fortune – I hope the Scottish media who were ‘bought’ for a mess oh porridge or even succulent lamb will realise how cheaply they sold their professionalism and the Scottish Public down the river.

    But for that smaller band of Scottish Journos who kept the faith in the Journalistic Code and brought or attempted to bring the truth to the Public we know who you are and are proud of you.

    However, any impostors who, at a later date, attempt to climb on the bandwagon may well have to deal with the ‘facts’ contained in earlier fantasies which are a blot on the landscape of Scotland and lie scattered like the bleached bones of the lambs who were devoured but will no longer be silenced.

  15. COYBIG

    A few questions:

    Charlie recently said, DM Hall have valued The Rangers property at £80m. Was it DM Hall who valued oldco’s property at £120m, a few years ago?

    Some people have said, the reason the property was valued at £120m, was in order to make the books look healthy. So, do you think Charlie’s had the property valued, in order to make the Prospectus look healthy?

    And would potential investors, excluding the people who would be doing it for sentimental reasons, decide to invest in a company, just because of the valuation of it’s property?

    • ecojon

      @ Coybig

      This is something from RM so I can’t vouch for its accuracy:

      ‘£78m mkt cap with Rangers property assets (Ibrox + Murray Park)
      valued two weeks ago at £87m (property assets impaired down to
      £40m as we are in div 3)’.

      It was in a post containing an additional 7 shareholders to the list posted here but I have difficulties in understanding why RM would post something like that so will not repeat the names.

      An investor – with no emotional ties – will look at asset values and other factors when deciding whether to invest. However a ‘savvy’ investor will look at the previous valuation done April/May, when Rangers was still hoping to be in SPL, which valued the assets for sale at £1.5 million. So if you apply the 40% deduction following the reasoning in the RM piece then you have a value of £0.9 million.

      The question that a ‘savvy’ investors then ask themself is: What has changed in the last few months to make a £0.9 million property asset jump in value to £40 million? They won’t break sweat trying to answer the question but put down their child’s late night reading material and rejoin the real world.

    • would be interesting to see how they compare with the valuation obtained on behalf of the creditors by duff and duffer and why such a massive difference, don t tell me just because a few season books have been sold it now has increased 10 fold in the value obtained by D&D

  16. mick

    @every1 theres more tapes via abbc tonight on news
    Mark Daly @markdaly2

    More Duff & Phelps secret tape revelations tonight on Reporting Scotland BBC1 6.30pm
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite

    info @ sourced at tsfm

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      Ah hear the sevconians are demanding that the BBC give them a 20 second warning so they have time to switch-off and be able to observe their boycott against the conspiracy.

      • Mick

        @ecojon Am sitting at the telly it’s tax related lol whytes well done them lol a wonder what there viewing rates are the whole country’s gripped by it ,there drip feeding us a reckon they might a have lots more

  17. mick

    this is the halloween special from the fantastic billy nowell a little of topic but he always gets a good responce

  18. JohnBhoy

    Greedy, thieving, deceitful, lying, corrupt, foul cesspit of human detritus the lot of them. While millions of people, including children, starve to death this lot of corporate suits scheme to get fatter. Send them all to hell in a handcart.

  19. ecojon

    Well that’s it Lord Hodge will need to order everything unpicked – It’s impossible to see where else tghis can go. Daly should get UK Investigative Journalist of the Year for this. Absolutely brilliant reporting.

  20. ecojon

    I think HMRC is going to use this whole thing to slaughter some of the fat cats to frighten the sh*t out of the rest. It’s hard to know where this is going to stop and once the D&P punters are pulled in by Strathpol I wonder who they will name and how far back it goes.

    It’s like 10 blue bottles sitting on the wall just waiting to be picked-off. The one good thing out of it is I can’t see how any flotation can go ahead so it will save the Bears some cash and maybe they can spend it with a new owner. I’m sure Craigie will let Ashley have it pretty cheaply 🙂

    Whoever gets jailed will need to make sure they are sent far away as I don’t fancy their chances dubbed up in Scotland. Turks & Caicos might be a good bet 🙂 Don’t know though there might be a Rangers or Celtic Supporters Club out there.

    I know they have a Provo Golf Club and I’m sure that Leggo’s reported sighting of Jack Irvine, the Media House PR main man, allegedly on holiday recently in the Turks & Caicos Island paradise would not have included a visit to the golf club named 🙂

  21. John Burns

    Hi Paul, digesting and understanding.

    These new revelations cast doubt over the whole Ticketus deal and therefore the sale of the former Rangers club – however the implication must now be that if they could lie, and ‘duck and dive’ over this transaction, how many more transactions during the period are now suspect.

    If £27 million from the Ticketus deal can be handled in such a way, then surely the expedient ‘sell-off’ the assets for £5.5 million should be investigated as a matter of urgency.

    Duff and Phelps’ honesty has now be called into question – HMRC must ‘step up to the plate’ and look to ‘rewind’ all other arrangements carried out during this ‘sham’ administration.

    Finally, could Whyte also have Green and Murray on tape?

Leave a Reply

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

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

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