Why Did Sir David Murray Sell Rangers and Other Points – A Response to Adam

It is always good when Adam pops back in to offer us his views and thoughts, which I appreciate greatly. I also liked the Fitzcarraldo comment! He has been party to a cracking debate running on the blog as we speak, and I thought I would take advantage of my position as the blog host to write a response to some of what he has been saying tonight.

For those who have not been following the debate (and why not?) one strand of discussion has been what the Rangers debt would have been without the “Big Tax Case”, whether Lloyds wanted their money. There are a couple of points where I think something needs to be added.

First of all, here are some of Adam’s comments.


I was specifically responding to the point of “if we ignore the FTTT debt”. The “FTTT debt” was the killer for us. That’s the main reason Lloyds wanted nothing to do with us as they didn’t want to lose £18m and they knew they would do so.

It is a mile out in the context of the picture re the Big Tax Case being ignored. It’s the butterfly effect. If you ignore the Big Tax Case, then you can also ignore Ticketus and the PAYE to HMRC and numerous unpaid legal bills.

Murray was never going to stay in charge whilst the BTC was hanging over his head if he had a way out.

Lets be 100% clear and 100% factual. The reason Murray sold for £1 was due SOLELY to the Big Tax Case. There is absolutely not even a smidgen of a doubt about this.

Just checked the creditors list and as stated, if you ignore Whyte’s abominations and potential frauds/lies which were a direct result of the FTTT then the real debt owed was £6.5m. This excludes debentures to bond holders which were potentially payable over 25 years but in reality would never be paid back (Celtic have similar).

As previously stated, the reason Lloyds wanted out was because of the Big Tax Case. The risk profile was high that they would end up with nothing.


The Big Tax Case “started” when tax assessments were made upon Rangers in 2008 in connection with the EBT usage. However Sir David Murray was trying to sell out his interests at Ibrox long before that. As the BBC said on 13th July 2006:-

Rangers owner David Murray may sell the club within the next three years and has already been approached by potential buyers.

He told the Financial Times: “I’m coming up for 20 years, and I think that will be enough for anybody. We’ve had a couple of people speak to us tentatively, but I would only sell the club if it was somebody who could take it to a higher level.”

John Macmillan, secretary of the Rangers Supporters Association, said: “I am confident Mr Murray would only sell to someone with the best interests of the club, its players and supporters at heart. It’s true he has had his detractors who say he only took over Rangers for his own profile but he has invested lots of time and his own money in the club.”

Stephen Smith, of the Rangers Supporters Trust, added: “Our biggest nightmare would be a Malcolm Glazer taking control at Ibrox.

“One man who might be interested is Sir Tom Hunter, he’s known to be a big Rangers fan. But we don’t want one unaccountable rich man replaced with another. David Murray owns 91.8% of the club, that’s unhealthy, and whoever takes over we would like to see ownership radically overhauled and re-distributed.”

So he was looking to sell long before the Big Tax Case.

I included the comments from the fans’ spokesmen to show how easy it is to be wrong, and contrastingly how some had the right goal in mind.

As an aside, have a read at this excellent piece from expert financial journalist Ian Fraser from October 31st 2009 – Does Lloyds mean what it says about Rangers F.C.?

Mr Fraser’s piece makes it clear that Lloyds were concerned about Rangers long before the Big Tax Case.

The Guardian reported in April 2010:

Rangers are the latest club to be targeted by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regarding offshore payments made to players. The newly crowned Scottish Premier League champions issued a statement this afternoon which confirmed they are subject to an investigation and facing court action although they vigorously reject any suggestion of wrongdoing.

Rangers are understood to have used employee benefit trusts over the past decade to subsidise the wages of the highest-paid members of their playing staff, a matter which has triggered HMRC’s interest.

“There is an ongoing query raised by HMRC, which is part of a pending court case,” said Rangers in a statement. “On the basis of expert tax advice provided to Rangers, the club is robustly defending the matters raised.”

Alastair Johnston, the Rangers chairman, added: “This is not a new problem. It has been there for a long time.”

You will note that Rangers was “robustly” defending the case on the basis of its advice – correct as it turned out to be, at least so far.

As for ignoring lots of debt on account of Craig Whyte’s involvement – with hindsight the Big Tax Case bill is nowhere near what it could have been (although there is a liability still) but there was still the Wee Tax Case and either the Lloyds debt, or the Ticketus debt which cleared it, to be taken into account.

And (a point which I have not seen examined in any detail anywhere, except by me) Mr Whyte’s non-payment of bills to HMRC etc was not, as far as has been made public, to allow him to leave Ibrox laden with sacks full of gold. Instead the money that was not spent tax bills and other creditors was spent on running the football team and paying the wages of players whose salaries could not have been afforded if the tax and bills had been paid.

Rangers Football Club benefited from Mr Whyte’s decisions not to pay! That is why there was justice in the “football debt” being insisted upon being paid by newco.

And whilst the debenture holders might not have wanted their money back, it was still debt – as for Celtic’s debenture holders, it seems unlikely that the company which operates the team will go into liquidation, leaving debenture holders and shareholders with nothing.

And the sale of Rangers was, net, for £1. It however included Mr Whyte clearing £18 million debt. Therefore the sale price was effectively £18,000,001.

Blaming Craig Whyte for all of Rangers’ woes, as Adam seems to suggest (and I apologise if I misrepresent him) is a re-writing of history, and an invalid one.

Maybe Sir David Murray sold up because he did not want the risk of being the man at the helm when the shutters came down. But blaming the FTT for that is wrong. As I mentioned, the “For Sale” signs were up long before it was an issue.

And, talking of losses, one of the selling points to the City when Mr Green was looking to succeed with his CVA proposal was that, with HMRC approval (ha ha!) the successful buyers would have the use of over £40 million accumulated losses to be applied to reduce tax bills in future.

So, to conclude –

Did the Big Tax Case make Sir David Murray decide to sell? No.

Did it make Lloyds want out? No.

Were Rangers making huge profits till Whyte arrived? No.

Did Rangers benefit financially from non-payment by Mr Whyte? Yes.

Will this argument continue? Yes!

Posted by Paul “Herzog” McConville



Filed under Charles Green, Rangers

116 responses to “Why Did Sir David Murray Sell Rangers and Other Points – A Response to Adam

  1. buckfastswallier

    your level of compassion is legendary.

  2. Adam

    My right of reply then and i will try and deal with your points in some sort of order as you have typed them Paul.

    You say Murray was planning a sale prior to the Big Tax Case by citing an article in 2006 about selling sometime in the next 3 years but as has been alluded on the previous blog, the Big Tax Case really started in 2004 and investigations were already on the radar.

    Prior to the Tax Case being as high profile as it was when he sold, you quite rightly note him saying “I would only sell the club if it was somebody who could take it to a higher level.” Did he do that ? Or did he sell because he had to ?

    In respect of Lloyds, it should be remembered that they inherited the debt in January or February of 2009 and were probably still getting up to speed as to what was happening with all of the debts across their portfolio in those early months.

    Moving further on, you do indeed misrepresent me. I am not entirely blaming Whyte at all. Murray has a lot to answer for, not least for the ultimate sin of bringing Whyte to the club. (apology accepted for this misrepresentation)

    And to conclude

    Did the big Tax Case make Murray sell for £1 to Whyte ? YES

    Did it make Lloyds want out ? ABSOLUTELY YES

    Were Rangers making HUGE profits before Whyte arrived ? NO

    Were Rangers profitable over the 6 years prior to Whyte arriving ? YES

    Did Rangers benefit financially from non-payment by Mr Whyte? NO. If you believe that what Whyte failed to pay will be greater than what we will lose out on over the 4 or 5 years since this mess, then you are wrong.

    There is probably other parts and if anyone would like to ask for my view on any specific part i may have missed out, i will be happy to oblige.

    • Den


      When you say Rangers were profitable over the years before Whyte arrived. Are you referring to Trading profit or one of the other profit numbers they show?

      The balance sheet shows cumulative losses of £131.2m in 2005 accounts and £135.8 in 2010 which is £4.6m more of a loss. Why the difference in the profit figures.

      • Adam

        The cumulative reported profit over that period was £3m though without deep diving into the accounts, i accept this may be pre-tax profits. There was a link to football finances on an earlier blog and you can see it there.

        However, clearly any profitable years were linked to CL participation only.

        • Den


          You are right it was profit before tax and about 3m.

          I was taking the profit balance at the end of 2005 which was 5years accounts not 6 as you said. 2005 profit was 12.7m so adding that in does indeed show a profit. The club made a good profit on selling players that year and had a gain of £15m from Negative goodwill.

          • Den


            If instead of taking six years you take 5 Rangers were not profitable, if you take seven – not profitable, and so on.

            We’re you just very selective with your choice of range.

        • Jimmy S

          Did pre-tax profit not = actual profit in case of oldco? 😉

    • James C

      To your last point

      Did Rangers benefit financially from non-payment by Mr Whyte?

      In long term you are correct, as a result a huge amount of asset in the form of players was cancelled, future earning from SPL and CL lost and a new team will eventually have to be built from scratch. I doubt any of current squad would be in a potential SPL winning team.

      However, what it did do is provide cash and Rangers had clearly run out of cash. When a business runs out of cash then I’m afraid it has to stop trading end of. So he did it to save the short term as otherwise he had no long term.

      The alternative thing to do would have been raise cash by selling players or other assets, reduce out goings by downsizing etc. However any attempt to do that would have been unacceptable to the nuckledraggers,

      Whyte opted instead to stiff the revenue on the assumption he could do a quick admin, dump debt and carry on. Didn’t work out.

    • coatbrigbhoy

      you asked
      Did the big Tax Case make Murray sell for £1 to Whyte ? YES

      my reply
      Murray had his own reasons to sell, the big tax case was only one of them, he was asking £6m for his shares, only after 5 months of due diligence did the small tax case pop into site, Whyte used this £2.8m demand from the HMRC to force the seller to accept the token £1

      Did Rangers benefit financially from non-payment by Mr Whyte? NO.

      Whyte took control, increased the contracts of 5 players and brought in 7 more, he used Ticketus money to clear the bank debt, he used VAT,PAYE, NIC’S to pay the gigantic wage bill for ALL employed at IBROX until Administration caught up with him, this allowed Rangers to compete and play until the end of the season.

      Just how did having £18m of bank debt repaid not help Rangers out financially, using ticketus’s money and then handing over the future season ticket money to Lloyds, obviously financially helped rangers, if the Ticketus agreement was been honoured, how would Green pay the wages this season

      • Adam

        Murray sold Rangers for £1 due to the Big Tax Case. No matter how many times you change your question or stance, there is no disputing it.

  3. JohnBhoy

    @Mad Adam

    You like numbers, so how many times do you think – ooops, casual assumption there! – that we will see the following headline on the The Rangers website?


  4. Adam

    I see that as per usual people would rather display their intolerances through thumbs downs rather than ask specific questions about any points made in my post.

    • ecojon

      Adam is as slippery as the old snake oil charmer himself when it comes to answering questions.

      In the previous blog I said: ‘What was it 9 years to get the info from Rangers plus the need for a police raid at the end when all patience was lost by HMRC. As I have said on here many times – if HMRC had been responded to in a professional and business-like manner then I have little doubt that the matter would have been well cleared-up without the amount of penalties that accrued and the BTC would not have turned into the monster that terrified everyone involved with Ibrox.’

      Adam replied: ‘And no, it wasnt 9 years. You have just made that up.’

      And yet in this post above Adam states: ‘The Big Tax Case really started in 2004 and investigations were already on the radar’.

      Typical Adam tries to deflect by claiming I have lied when he is telling the porkies by his own admission. And all the while ignoring the actual substance of the way that Rangers was acting that greatly contributed to the club’s downfall long before Whytre was picked to be the sacrificial lamb. Never mind the business madness of getting involved with EBTs in the first place.

      But one thing about Whyte which might be true – it looks as though he didn’t pay his tax but I agree with Paul that he seems to have ploughed the money into the club so I really doubt that he will be going to jail as is so desperately desired by many of the old guard still sniffing about Ibrox and who showed their true worth and commitment when the blue chips were down and chico won the roll of the dice.

    • Mark Murphy

      Intolerances, or disagreements? A big difference.

  5. willy wonka

    My take on why Murray sold Rangers………………. Murray, despite all the plaudits received from most sections [not all , certainly not from me] of the Rangers support, wanted out because questions were being asked and had been for 3 or 4 years, which he repeatedly refused to answer. I’m not talking about in the media, and shame on them, but from Rangers fans themselves. He was able to carry the club because it was a minor part of his ’empire’ which had a seemingly endless access to credit.
    The big tax case arrived . A worry, but the credit line was still there.
    Then things went tits up with his major source of capital. There were no buyers for Rangers. Hardly surprising due the the BTC rumours.
    At his point, in my opinion, LBG started calling the shots. They had Murray by the baws and what they said went.
    Whyte ? Murray signed off any future liability for the BTC going against him. LBG got their cash in full.
    And Whyte [we didn’t all buy into the ‘billionaire’ crap] who had been hoping for a quick result in the tax case to strip out and sell off what he could for a fast profit, was able to run amock . The only choice he had as he didn’t have two ha’pennies to rub together to start with.
    Do I blame HMRC ? – No.
    Are Duff & Phelps at fault ? – No.
    Rangers fell because of Whyte. Murray sold Rangers to Whyte.
    Murray should be stripped of his knighthood and hunted straight out of this country.

  6. lord mac

    i cant see why llyods under wrote 150 million for murray international trust
    then worry about the 18 million when they had the 24% of rangers there was a deal done i belive ith llodys that rangers would pay of there loan
    at 1 million per year why that changed i dont know but why was it the case
    18 milion represnted 24% of rangers yet when valued by duff and phelps it was 5.5 million 18million = 24% just about a 1/4 share = 72 million rangers where worth

    • Adam

      Sorry Lord Mac, you have lost me. 😦

    • willy wonka

      LM ……………LBG’s 24% of Rangers meant nothing if HMRC were going to hit Rangers with another £50 million – £300 gazillion [depending on what site you read at the time].
      When Murray sold Rangers LBG got their full £18 million and also got rid of any MIH [LBG] liability for any HMRC debts.
      They won both ways.

    • Afraid your way off there.It was the charlatans in charge of Bank of Scotland that bankrolled MIM, no doubt while cozying up to Sir Minty in front of the log fire at Gleneagles,or was it on The Square if you catch my drift. After Lloyds bought BoS they were horrified at the level of credit afforded to this company, especially given the losses it had accrued.The gas was turned off.Sir Minty then had no choice but to start a fire sale of his companies. Enter stage right Craigy boy, The rest as the say is history

      • portpower

        Did`nt Lloyds employees find paperwork concerning murray and rangers.
        Never heard anything about it again. Strange that?

  7. lord mac

    sorry the keys are mixed up

  8. ecojon

    Adam is as slippery as the old snake oil charmer himself when it comes to answering questions.

    In the previous blog I said: ‘What was it 9 years to get the info from Rangers plus the need for a police raid at the end when all patience was lost by HMRC. As I have said on here many times – if HMRC had been responded to in a professional and business-like manner then I have little doubt that the matter would have been well cleared-up without the amount of penalties that accrued and the BTC would not have turned into the monster that terrified everyone involved with Ibrox.’

    Adam replied: ‘And no, it wasnt 9 years. You have just made that up.’

    And yet in this post bove Adam states: ‘The Big Tax Case really started in 2004 and investigations were already on the radar’.

    Typical Adam tries to deflect by claiming I have lied when he is telling the porkies by his own admission. And all the while ignoring the actual substance of the way that Rangers was acting that greatly contributed to the club’s downfall long before Whytre was picked to be the sacrificial lamb. Never mind the business madness of getting involved with EBTs in the first place.

    But one thing about Whyte which might be true – it looks as though he didn’t pay his tax but I agree with Paul that he seems to have ploughed the money into the club so I really doubt that he will be going to jail as is so desperately desired by many of the old guard still sniffing about Ibrox and who showed their true worth and commitment when the blue chips were down and chico won the roll of the dice.

    • Adam

      Im not lying. The case did start in 2004. The information was given in 2008 according to the FTTT. 2008-2004 is 4 years. Not 9 years. Am i missing something or are you talking utter rubbish ?

      • ecojon


        The Darkside are trying to organise a mass court action against the SFL with fans individually suing the league, if they vote for reconstruction, through the Small Claims Courts for being deprived of promotion.

        One Bear has laid out his claim as: All ticket costs (home and away) all petrol costs, match programmes, pies and anything else I can think of up to a limit of £3000, based on the presumption that I was financially supporting my club in order to gain promotion, as set out by the SFL at the beginning of the season. (Wonder if its Ally as you cn get a helluva lot of pies for £3k)

        Obsession certainly has reached new heights in never never land – wonder if it will do as well as their HMRC petition to Parliament. And I thought the SFL were their only friends as well. Looks as though the lack of a grip on reality stretches from top to bottom at Ibrox.

        Is there no league anywhere in the world that will take these Scottish refugees in – that was a daft question because everyone knows they would cause a rammy in an empty football ground. I can see borders being fortified all over the world to keep them and their obsessions well and truly at bay 🙂

        What next?

        • Maybe Spartans should sue Sevco for stealing their place in the 3rd!

        • Adam

          Let me guess. You frequent a Rangers site, for reasons only known to yourself, and someone with 50 posts or something has decided to post this nonsense.

          It could be me. It could even be you. Isnt that how these things work ?

        • portpower

          What next?
          If league reconstruction gets the go ahead (SPL teams have voted yes.SFL vote on Thursday) sevco supporters will boycott all away games. No need for McGill`s buses then? This is Just Pure Bliss.

        • iain

          “Obsession certainly has reached new heights in never never land”

          Tell us about your complaint campaign to Major General Nick Eeles then Eco.

      • ecojon


        You’re missing a brain Adam. You are trying to deflect by farting about with dates when my real point is that if there had been full coopertion with HMRC the EBT monster would never have arisen and Rangers might just might not have been liquidated necessitating the formation of a new club, a new operating company and a new holding company.

        The EBTs started in 2000/01 and HMRC was interested from the start.

        The FTTT decision states: ‘The appeals (all heard together as one appeal) relate to the tax years 2001/02 to 2008/09, and concern a number of assessments for PAYE and NIC issued between February and April 2008 covering the period up to 5 April 2007, and the additional
        assessments issued in March 2010 for 5 2007/08 and 2008/09.

        The FTTT decision also stated: ‘The impasse in procuring the necessary documents for the enquiry was broken only by the separate enquiry conducted by the City of London Police (COLP) in the autumn of 2007, when a search warrant on Rangers secured various documents and crucially image copies of computer hard drives. The COLP consulted HMRC Criminal Investigation Section on the material seized from Ibrox, and allowed HMRC’s investigating officer to have the first sighting in October 2007 of a side letter in Mr Berwick’s file that was seized. It was then that the Respondents became privy to information, hitherto unavailable, on how the trust scheme was being used within Rangers’.

        The FTTT appeal case wasn’t heard until early last year so in my book the saga has easily run for at least 11 years so far with possibly another 7/9 to come.

        You are just attempting to rewrite history Adam which means there is something there to be looked at in more detail if you are trying to hide it 🙂

        • Adam

          Im not trying to rewrite anything. In fact, if you go back to the last blog and read what i said about what my guess was as to the reason the tribunal took so long, you will see that we actually probably share the same view.

          Your problem is that you only read what you want to read. I mean you had me blaming HMRC on the last blog as well for goodness sake. 😦

    • Adam

      And also, what money did Whyte “plough in” exactly. Whyte put ZERO into Rangers.

  9. arb urns

    This does show what massive sporting advantage the ebts provided with the company folding pronto after they werent available. Whyte had a £50m t/o to run the ship this t/o could not support the expenditure and the debts he inherited. From day 1 of whytes reign the plan had two routes out of the ebts either by administration or winning the case. The club had no chance of reaching this end game as events proved, just look at the cuts the liquidators had to introduce to the salary bill as soon as they were in the door. In my view for Adams theory to be correct whyte would have needed to syphon millions into one of these canine accounts that are popular in monaco.

    • Adam

      Can you explain arb – What is this £50m t/o you refer to ?

      • arb urns

        t/o 2010 56.3m- chico yesterday referred to typically dropping from £60m to £30m t/o. google- spl finances- cracking site will give u it all a. pretty gruelling stuff for gers fans losses of £140m 1999-2009.

        this is actually why murray had to keep underwriting his share issues and gers fans were fed up with him going to the trough continually. it was seen they were giving and he was taking.

        the current model aint much different tbh. i have seen a fair few of these £1 transactions over the years the behind the scenes is horrendous believe me.

        i will give you one thing and this is what should have happened in my view one season of champs league football plus europa run or similar to celtics cl run now and cash in on the likes of mcgregor etc could have got everybody off everybodys back.

        i have maintained this cl is a monster from day 1 people do funny things when big moneys about.

        • Adam

          arb, as you have pointed out, the £50m years were all CL years. Whyte never had anything like that, plus i feel there is still more to come on what actually happened with some of the money.

          • arb urns

            adam u qualified for the cl every year except one when vlad interrupted the party. the gearing was horrendous the model wasnt sustainable and the ebts masked the whole picture.sdm and the ineffective previous board have a lot to answer for.whyte would inherit a 60-70% increase in salary bill in accounting terms without the ebt subsidy.

            its been a cracking night on here in terms of moving u and hopefully some others forward in this saga. am confident u can now see some of the celtic anger with whats been pointed out to you tonight via the dreadful goings on at your club during the last 10 years. cheating millions out of millions of revenue, the exchequer and hard pressed small businesses with these wrong and partially wrong schemes to remunerate players. not to mention the aftermath.

            for my part as a ‘provincial’ club fan and having spent thousands over the years in good faith dreaming of a champs league place, domestic cup wins etc etc I am beyond the pail with the ibrox activities and you are where you are for a reason and its nobodys fault but your own club.

            • Adam

              Ive never blamed anyone else. There in lies the rub of things.

            • arb urns

              and so adam to conclude ” rangers have unnecessarily been placed in this position ” u got it its taken a while but u r there adam BY RANGERS ……go tell it to the world.

  10. John C

    Were rangers operating whilst insolvent prior to Whyte arriving on the scene ?

    • willy wonka

      No..They weren’t.

      • John C

        Willy W..,
        When were the last audited accounts produced ?
        How do you know ?

        • willy wonka

          Audited accounts were produced every year up until Whyte bought the club. I know because I am in possession of them all and went to every AGM since I bacame a shareholder.

          • John C

            willy w…,
            Wht was the stadium valued at ?

            • Adam

              You do realise that you can be technically insolvent but remain trading dont you?

            • willy wonka

              If you think for one second I’m going up into my loft at this time of night to dig out some old paperwork, you’re very much mistaken.
              Google has been every ‘experts’ friend since the start of this whole fiasco. Save my old legs and do a search there.

      • Maybe rangers accounts don t show that but the MIH group accounts would and the carousel that the group played was the whole reason of bank nervousness and the murray race to exit. rangers were actually fall guys for MIH and murray as was whyte.

        • John C

          The stadium was a club asset, in the end we are told it was worth less than £5.5M, the stadium value was artificially inflated to be used as equity against which debt was accumulated. Had the true value been declared, they would have liquidated a lot sooner because they were trading whilst insolvent.

          • Adam

            Again, you do realise that you can be technically insolvent but remain trading dont you?

            • John C

              But whilst technically insolvent they were actually insolvent, claiming to be in rude health financially because they artificially inflated the value of their assets whilst unqualified to hold an Association License. That’s pretty insolvent in every sense of the word.
              Remind me when did the FFP become mandatory 2010 ?
              Was that before Whyte ?

            • pretty sure that under duty of care that any director aware that the business is running insolvently has a responsibility to advise his creditors immediately, maybe Paul can verify that particular point, as it seems relevant in the picture of things when you look at the whole MIH picture which obviously include rangers.

          • John C

            Since the FFP rules became mandatory, how many times did rangers qualify to hold a license to play Association Football ?
            Without that license rangers were insolvent, no ?

          • Yes (case in fact Kilmarnock) this was also the case with many of the other assets of MIH which was why the banks became very nervous, Don t forget that the bank actually had there own man sitting as an active director on the rangers board monitoring the positions. They traded on the strength of CL income or at the very least Europa run along with falsley inflated asset value to maintain the club within the ” financial reporting” cirteria for SFA & Uefa.

            Murray drafted in Whyte as the fall guy, if it continued, status quo, then all was ok if it failed then the great murray walked away lilly white and no dirt attached as far as the majority were concerned.

            • Clarkeng

              There is a whole lot of theorising going on about things you clearly do not understand or choose not to.
              Firstly asset values rise and fall and where a business ceases to be a going concern then the fall can actually quite dramatic.
              Secondly companies like Rangers and MIH require by law to have their accounts audited before posting to verify that they are a true statement of the financial position of the company.
              The valuation of Ibrox etc will have been made by a qualified external surveyor who will provide the details of this to the auditor as part of the verification.
              So you can take it that the value of Ibrox etc at the last audited accounts was verifiable based on its worth to the business as a going concern.
              And that this value had been externally verified.
              The value of £5.5m given by the Administrators is the estimate they make of the worth of the asset ( probably after consulting a surveyor for advice on this ) when the business is no longer considered a going concern.
              That valuation is based on what they think they will be able to achieve in the sale of the assets whether as a going concern or not.
              The duties of an administrator and those of a liquidator are quite different in certain respects but safe to say they are governed as officers of the court.
              The performance of Duff & Phelps is clearly a matter for BDO the liquidators to review and they ultimately will decided whether the duties of an administrator were carried out properly in line with the governance required by law.
              Notwithstanding this review in real life I have never heard of an administrator being challenged by a liquidator on how they reached their valuation of the assets ( and from memory in this case the adninistrator definitely used a firm of surveyors to provide back up to this ).
              Whether or not this happens in this case remains to be seen.
              However ( now sit down everyone as I am about to say something which the unwashed probably want to hear ) from my own perspective I am not at all sure Duff and Duffer have performed their duties properly.
              The liquidators prime function is to realise the assets at best value obtainable for dispersal amongst the creditors.
              Their actions to do so will be under their statutory powers with resolutions voted on by the creditors.
              Given Green was the only game in town I think Duff and Duffer will probably be verbally chastised and criticised in the liquidators report but that will be the end of it.

            • Carl31

              “The value of £5.5m given by the Administrators is the estimate they make of the worth of the asset ( probably after consulting a surveyor for advice on this ) when the business is no longer considered a going concern.”
              ..,.but, but, how can the continuing club asset not be considered a going concern?! Surely to goodness, man, if the club continues through thick and thin and insolvency, the business assets are always a going concern?

            • John C

              “The valuation of Ibrox etc will have been made by a qualified external surveyor who will provide the details of this to the auditor as part of the verification.”
              However the valuation for MIH was taken internally they were not external independent surveyors. Sort of messes up your fundamental premise, no ?

            • Clarkeng

              @carl31 and John C
              This is in response to your posts below mine but neither have a reply tag.
              Carl 31
              As soon as the administrator is appointed the business ceases to be a going concern.
              The administrator has several options available to him.
              These are 1.) liquidation as the business is beyond saving,2.) sale of the assets but not liabilities to a new owner or even to the existing owner or 3.) sale of the business as a going concern to someone who accepts both the assets and the liabilities and basically refinances the business with new working capital in the form of a loan or new share capital.
              In this case option 2.) was the selected route and the assets were sold on to the new owner.
              The original company proceeds to liquidation and a liquidator is appointed to recover any assets which have not been sold to the new owner and if possible make a payment to the creditors.
              It is all legal and in fact very common in times of financial uncertainty.
              The administrator when he selects the option must then decide on a valuation of the assets and this will invariably be done by a surveyor or valuer to protect the administrator from claims by the liquidator that the assets were sold too cheaply.
              John C
              How do you know this John?
              I would be very suprised in fact astonished if that were the case.
              It is true the financial statement is produced by the Directors of the company and they will have a book value which has been calculated from the opening balance to include money expended on improvements and depreciation.
              But because Rangers were a PLC the accounts ( the statement ) would be subject to external audit and the rules for these audits require the auditor to verify and certify the value of the assets noted by the directors.
              If they are unable to do so they will docket or qualify the accounts or if the statement is wildly inaccurate they will refuse to sign off the accounts.
              This would prevent accounts being lodged which comply with the requirements of the Companies Act and after a period of time and penalties would lead to the company being dissolved and struck off.
              As far as I am aware during Murray’s tenure all accounts were properly lodged hence the value of the assets will have been externally verified and certified as being correct.
              The wording is something like “This statement is a true and proper statement of the accounts presented by on behalf of and will be signed by the Auditor to that effect.
              Under Whyte of course he tried to present accounts which were either unaudited or had not been signed off and Companies House rightly rejected these.

            • gary brown

              @michaelk1888.too true mate..anybody that thinks murray/whyte/green/duff.n.phelps/the sfa/and the bank are not all connected to this massive fiddle are kidding themselves on

  11. Adam, good evening. In your reply you state that Rangers never benefited “financially” from Mr Whyte’s non payment of tax and vat. Paul makes no mention of any financial benefit, but points to the fact that Rangers used the funding which should have been sidelined for tax/vat, for staff remunerations, thus enabling Rangers to field a football team. Are you claiming that Mr Whyte could have paid both the staff, AND the players wages.? When probed on a tv interview, Mr Whyte clearly stated that these bills were unpaid because the club had no money. It follows then that Rangers benefited in as much as they were able to pay large sums to the players, while neglecting their tax liabilities.

    • Adam

      Not sure i understand your point as Paul specifically states. “Did Rangers benefit FINANCIALLY from non-payment by Mr Whyte?”

      How you get to “Paul makes no mention of any financial benefit” from the statement above im not sure.

      • By not paying tax, Mr Whyte was able to maintain a full complement of playing staff. Staff which could have been sold to make contributions towards the tax liability. This meant that Rangers were fielding players they clearly couldn’t afford to employ. Hence the benefit.

    • Sorry, not staff AND players wages…Tax AND players wages.

    • willy wonka

      Afraid you’re looking at that one sideways on.
      Whyte stole money from Rangers [amongst others] and used it in an attempt to keep the club going.
      ‘Rangers’ didn’t benefit.
      Whyte TRIED to benefit.

      If somebody breaks into my house and steals my possessions which he then sells to buy drugs, does that make me a drug dealer ?

      • Rhobin Hood

        I must be the only one who thinks: BENEFIT? They WERE ENABLED TO CONTINUE PLAYING, otherwise they would have folded and been unable to complete the season. Now, isn’t that a FINANCIAL benefit gained through non payment of Tax etc?

      • portpower

        whyte was CEO of rangers who did`nt pay the clubs` taxes.
        rangers did benefit.
        Was the SFA/SPL told that rangers were trading while insolvent?

        • willy wonka

          Can you tell me how ‘Rangers’ benefitted ? Whyte deducted taxes from staff and used the money to go towards paying the next weeks staff wages. Why ? Because he had no money of his own to keep the club going. Thanks to his NOT paying the taxes Rangers went into administration with all the [continuing] penalties resulting from that……. players walked away, 3rd division, fines, bans from Europe.
          From all that, how have Rangers ‘benefitted’ ?
          Paul may shiver a wee bit and possibly delete this post but I’ll say it quite clearly – Whyte engaged in criminal behaviour. He wasn’t the only one and I pray that I see the day when the whole lot of them are standing in the dock of a court.
          ‘Trading while insolvent’ ? The guy holding the title deeds to Ibrox was raping the club, the players and the fans. He was running the club into the ground. And you’re worried about some p!shy minor offence ?

      • Of course it doesn’t make you a drug dealer, That’s just daft! BUT, If the burglar broke into your home and all he found were bare floor boards and a dead mouse, does that make him a thief if there is nothing to steal? The chain was being threaded through the rusty iron gates and the fat lady was in full voice. They refused to listen to her in the SFA offices and was drowned out by Campbell Ogilvie’s No Surrender CD playing at full volume on his EBT funded ghetto blaster. Tthat was a helluva benefit!

        • willy wonka

          Breaking into a house, even if the only thing in it are floorboards and a deid mouse IS a common law crime. It’s called housebreaking with intent to steal. No, it doesn’t make you a thief. It makes you a person who was attempting theft by housebreaking.
          As for Campbell, I know him. I can assure you he doesn’t own any No Surrender cd.
          Silly post imo.

          • Ally McMoist

            “Whyte stole money from Rangers [amongst others] and used it in an attempt to keep the club going.
            ‘Rangers’ didn’t benefit.” – Do you actually realise how contradictory this statement is?

  12. Maggie

    @Paul Herzog* Mc Conville
    * I see what you did there with my Fitzcarraldo comment,
    good work sir.
    Again my cup runneth over,though I was only alluded to this
    time,but that’ll do me.Happy to be of service. 🙂

  13. MPs’ report tells football to reform or face government intervention
    By Richard Conway BBC Sport

    English football has been told it must introduce reforms within a year or the government may impose changes.

    The ultimatum appears in a new report from the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

    The MPs’ report outlines concerns about financial management, the balance of power between the Premier League and the Football Association and the impact of significant risk-taking by owners.

    Sports minister Hugh Robertson MP said: “We welcome the report.”

  14. lord mac

    will this be the excuse the SFA want to hear, if we fine rangers or strip titles they will leave us, there are giving odds now of 1/20 that they will be let of the hook. if this happens the sfa will loose all teams

  15. lord mac

    18 million was the value of 24% of rangers Adam, that was paid back to the lloyd’s who held the shares, so when whtye was in charge rangers where valued at 72 million and duff and Phelps new that was the case.
    there was no need for craig whyte to pay a thin dime back to any one
    as he has closed over 40 companies and that was the reason he was put in place, as you cant fault experience the money that walked if you like most likley would have been divided up to all who where in the charlottes web
    as the selling of the shares is a sure sign of clearing out all the cupboards.

  16. Adam

    Where are you getting that Lloyds had 24% share in Rangers from and why are you equating this to the £18 million ??

    The £18 million was a long term loan that was being repaid at £1m per year plus interest. It had nothing to do with Lloyds having a stake in Rangers and Rangers were not valued at £72m. The market cap at its height was probably in the region of £50m.

    Not withstanding that, a company is only worth what someone will pay for it and when Whyte was in charge there is not a hope in hells chance that Rangers were valued at anything remotely near £72m.

    That is just ludicrous.

    • Rhobin Hood

      Surely Ibrox &Murray Park were/are worth far more than what Green paid. On nan emotional level my mother trained greyhounds at The Albion: so even as a car park/land I’d lie the value to be tighter than that.

    • portpower

      In the two years prior to the sale to Craig Whyte rangers reduced their debt from £30m to £18m with Lloyds.

    • Carl31

      “a company is only worth what someone will pay for it”.

      Well said that man!
      Pay attention anyone who is valuing a current company by the method, ‘shares in issue x the price’.

  17. Rhobin Hood

    Like the value to be higher .. Sorry!😳

  18. Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!

    In Aug 2008 SDM spent £29M on players and took in £19M for net spend of £10M. Had he instead made some provison from the £29M to cover the tax bill received in early 2008 then Rangers would have been in a better position to deal with HMRC.

    However had that money not been spent on the players that formed the squad that won 3 titles in a row from 2009 and the CL money that brought in then the debt of £18M owed to Lloyds would have been much higher. As it was it climbed from £6M in 2006 to £31M in 2009 before the CL money the spending enabled started to flow back in.

    Would it have gone high enough without CL money to spook Lloyds?

    Would the team that won 3iar not been assembled would the support at that time have stayed the less than rich course laid before them? Had they the stomach to watch Celtic winning 6 iar and the money that would have brought them?

    EBTs were only part of SDM’s misjudgements. I go along with arab trust that CL money (or rather the way it tempts clubs to pursue it) is a crucial factor in all of this. It was not withholding Tax and NI that killed Rangers under CW. It was failing to get access to the CL money that was necessary to keep them alive and which would have paid the tax and NI that killed them when they failed to beat Malmo and then Maribor. having been granted a UEFA licence with the unpaid wee tax bill still unpaid during the dates in 2011 when it should have been declared as still outstanding (Jun and Sept)

    It was the absolute dependence on CL money for survival rather than bragging rights that changed everything.

  19. Opening line aimed at SDM not Adam.

  20. I feel the BTC was a reason for Murray to sell, but just not the way you described it.

    It is clear Murray was looking for a way out in 2006… but, back then, he was one of the few to know about the dark clouds looming years down the line in the form of a Big (and small) tax case. In 2006 Rangers were flying high, with no one knowing that it was only because they were paying significantly more than every other club, so you could argue that their value was then at its highest.

    As the years went on without a buyer Murray became more and more desperate to sell as the day of reckoning with HMRC drew closer. In the end he had no choice but to dump the club for a pound.

    So, did the BTC make Murray decide to sell? YES.

    If there had been no BTC on the way, would he have sold?

  21. @ Adam
    Ask yourself one question, if as we seem to agree on the club was effectively up for sale to the “right person” for some 6 or more years and despite this being the biggest club in the UK behind MUFC with huge worldwide support marketing potential etc etc etc. Why did no one make a positive offer? The economy was in good shape, rfc were winning titles and had a good squad and all current facilities were in place with money in the bank to do the current proposed developments, hotel/casino etc etc.

    Was it that when people , as was the case with Millar et al, actually looked at the accounts and the club financial structure with any scrutiny then they saw the massive black hole that was the reality?

    I would put my cash on the answer being yes.

  22. abrahamtoast

    Once again I have to question Paul’s motives for allowing Adam to continue dragging down his blog. Adam is quite bright, but he is a troll, pure and simple. He knows he is posting utter cr*p, but he also knows he will get a reaction, and he is bright enough to notice when other posters make tiny mistakes. By his reasoning, one tiny mistake renders all the posters’ contributions invalid, yet he (Adam) can continue posting his increasingly desperate rambling himself.

    He is not in the least interested in constructive discussion – he just wants to continue the confusion. You all saw him do this time and time again on the RTC blog, yet you still indulge him; I can not fathom why.

    Please ignore him, and maybe he’ll go away.

    • Ernie

      I agree with this a’toast but I there’s an interesting dynamic going on in this and other blogs. In between the actual news stories it’s the likes of Adam who keep this alive and that’s important. Never mind rangers/sevco, they’re a laughing stock now and will be wherever they end up, the key issue is getting scottish fitba away from this crap. Adam et al are a bit like that UKIP gadgie, disproportionate amount of media coverage but reminds us all of how ridiculous his tenets are, and that is to the eventual betterment of us all, thank you!

    • Maggie

      I agree, I’m losing the will to live with his interminable
      droning on and on,not that I read it,I simply scan it and
      dismiss it as his usual trolling garbage.

      • Clarkeng

        Now now Maggie each person is entitled to their opinion.
        And we have to listen more garbage on this side of the fence than you do.
        Given the much greater numbers amongst you.
        Remember one persons Amarone is another persons Valpolicella.

      • Carl31

        when a question is avoided, or only one point in a long post relied on to counter all, or ad hominem or tu quoque or diversion or or any other somewhat slippery debating tactic used by any of the posters here, there are very many who easily recognise it.

        IMO, Lets not hope Adam or any other reasonable poster goes away, because no matter what his contributions amount to, they are of some kind of value.

        • Maggie

          @Carl 31
          He’ll stay for a wee while,then disappear again on one
          of his ” I’m a numbers’ man secret missions” where he
          doesn’t get wi fi. I’m not the site monitor Carl,and he can
          post to his hearts content,I just won’t be taking any cognisance
          of it as he could analysis the “beejeesus” out of the ingredients
          list on a biscuit wrapper……Yawn.

  23. Geddy Lee

    I don’t think it’s right to say Rangers did not benefit from Whyte’s tenure.

    Who else would have come up with 18 Million? allbeit obtained by disgraceful means.

    The bank had men on the board of Rangers, so will have known the full extent of the financial catastrophy waiting in the wings. The point blank refusal to pay a long long line of creditors, small and large will have probably been what promted the bank to say, OK Murray, that’s enough. Pay up or shut down. Hence him handing it over for a pound.

    He would have sold rangers to anyone, and I mean anyone to free himself from the tidal wave of markers being called in.

    The Big Tax case was just one of many factors that caused the extinction of rangers, but even without it, they would have still gone to the wall.

    • willy wonka

      I’ll ask you the same as I asked the other guy in the post above – how did Rangers ‘benefit’ ?
      The bank had their man on the Board because they wanted to make sure Murray got rid of the club before any liability arose from the decision of the FTTT.
      Which debts are you referring to that Murray ‘point blank’ refused to pay ?

  24. Den


    I want to address your question posed in your response to Paul:

    “were rangers profitable over the six years prior to Whyte arriving. YES”

    The value of the profits indeed exceeded the losses by 5.4m. In two of the years there was a loss but taken as a whole it was profitable.

    If the question were
    “were rangers profitable over the five years prior to Whyte arriving. ”
    It would be NO

    If the question were
    “were rangers profitable over the seven years prior to Whyte arriving. ”
    It would be NO

    Do you see where I am going ? In any range between 2 and 10 years , with the exception of 6 Rangers would be seen as unprofitable.

    As I previously stated 2005 showed a £12.7m profit which made your statement true, as I also pointed out the £12.7m included a benefit of £15m for Negative goodwill, a purely accounting transaction. On a trading basis Rangers made serious losses over ten years even with the benefit of the negative goodwill. In fact £82 million on turnover of £516M.

    I think your statement was somewhat misleading coming from a self professed numbers man. I would hate to think that we need to check every statistic you post.

  25. Geddy Lee.

    Willy, have you not seen the list of people and companies, and clubs that were owed money by Rangers (Incredible).

    Can you or any other bear explain why Murray punted the club for a quid despite constantly stating he would only sell to the “right man”.

    Clearly the bank demanding payment of 18 MILLION was too much for him to handle. Remember that was nothing to do with the massive list of creditors seperate from that.

    I can’t understand why posters like you keep blaming the Taxman for Rangers not being able/ refusing to pay their debts.

    • willy wonka

      Yes, I’ve seen the list of folk owed money. Had Whyte not failed to pay anybody at all a helluva lot more debtors may have received their due cash. Whytes fault.
      As to why Murray sold to Whyte, I’ve already explained that in posts by stating that LBG forced Murray into selling so that they [LBG] could get their £18 million back and rid themselves of any potential liability arising from the big tax case result. Murrays fault.
      Blaming ‘the Taxman’ ? – No I have NEVER EVER put the slightest blame on HMRC.
      The fault is squarely with Murray [MIH & LBG] and with Whyte.

      Why do posters like you consistently ignore what has previously been opined unless it comes from one of your own ?

      • arb urns

        This is late in this thread WW. Whyte didnt fail to pay anybody ,start with the players for inst, the model was bust well before whyte took it over. the massive reductions in wages tell you that from the minute d and p came in the door. imo thats about the only thing they did right was limp along to the end of the season.whyte is easy to make out as a fall guy but he wasnt porking when he said ” ok it brings in £1m pw but it has costs of £1.25m”. Bill miller walked away the minute he saw a minute amount of the books…. how many £1mpa remuneration packages did he mention ?

        The main fault lies with sdm , the previous board and lbg, selling to whyte for £1 gave sdm and lbg the exit route they wanted or needed and gave the club two options to ‘escape’ the ebt scandal either through administration or ‘victory’ at tribunal. The whole thing failed because nobody saw the LIQUIDATION possibility and it has proved impossible almost even now to get understood the difference between admin and liquid.

        Everything Rangers want to move forward as if it was Administration and those outside Rangers as bodies of authority either have to deal with liquidation or as fans of other clubs want and need their ‘ democracy’ to be liquidation sanctions and consequences .

        At the end of the day it may be that the 41 remaining clubs simply add a THE to their name and off we go again as an extreme to try and provide some perspective to the sad sad ‘Rangers Saga’

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