How Did “Private Eye” Get Hold of Papers about Craig Whyte’s Ban? It Went to Court and Asked for Them!

In which I praise Private Eye for its news-gathering activities; comment on the failure of other news organisations to do the same; compliment the English courts for its open-ness; and contrast this with the prevailing mood in the Scottish courts regarding “Open Justice”.


I was skimming the marvellous BAILII website, looking for interesting legal cases. As I did so, I came across one which was decided on 30th May 2012 by Mr Justice Morgan in the High Court in London. The case is titled Pressdram Limited v Craig Whyte and David Anderson. Pressdram Limited is of course the owner and publisher of Private Eye.

What happened here was that Private Eye engaged in good, honest journalism.

They wanted to see papers which related to the disqualification procedures taken against Mr Whyte and Mr Anderson under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.  These original proceedings were filed on 20th October 1998 and resulted in an order being made by Mr Registrar Simmonds on 13th June 2000.  That order was a seven year disqualification for Mr Whyte.

Morgan J took account of guidance on “Open Justice” regarding “availability of documents to non-parties”. He also considered a very recent decision of the Court of Appeal – R (on the application of the Guardian News and Media Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court & The Government of the United States of America and Article 19. In that case, which related to extradition, there had been, as Morgan J, in the Pressdram case, said, “a difference of view between the Divisional Court, which withheld the order sought by The Guardian newspaper and the Court of Appeal as to whether the Court had power to permit a newspaper to inspect certain documents and obtain copies of them, in relation to the extradition proceedings.”

He referred to paragraph 85 of that judgment where Lord Justice Toulson said:

‘In a case where documents have been placed before a judge and referred to in the course of proceedings, in my judgment the default position should be that access should be permitted on the open justice principle.

Where access is sought for a proper journalistic purpose the case for allowing it will be particularly strong.  However, there may be countervailing reasons.  In company with the US Court of Appeals second circuit and the Constitutional Court of South Africa I do not think that it is sensible or practical to look for a standard formula for determining how strong the grounds for opposition need to be in order to outweigh the merits of the application.  The Court has to carry out a proportionality exercise which will be fact specific.

Central to the Court’s evaluation will be the purpose of the open justice principle, the potential value of the material in advancing that purpose, and conversely any risk of harm which access to the documents may cause to the legitimate interests of others.’

Private Eye asked to see the following documents:-

  1. the originating summons in the directors disqualification proceedings;
  2. the evidence filed by the Secretary of State in support of its application;
  3. the evidence, if any, filed by Mr Craig Whyte;
  4. the evidence, if any, filed by Mr David Anderson, co-defendant;
  5. any further evidence together with exhibits filed by the Secretary of State or Mr Whyte or Mr Anderson in readiness for the substantive hearing which led to the order being made by Mr Registrar Simmonds on 13th June 2000; and
  6. any skeleton arguments or written submissions, whether by way of opening or closing submissions, relied upon by any of the parties to the directors disqualification proceedings, provided that those skeleton arguments are written submissions relating to the substantive hearing which led to the order of 13th June 2000.

Morgan J said:-

“The default position is that access should be permitted to the documents to which I have referred.  I am satisfied in this case that access is sought for a proper journalistic purpose and so Lord Justice Toulson would say the case for allowing access is particularly strong.”

He then considered whether any “countervailing reasons” had been raised or were present. As neither Mr Whyte nor Mr Anderson chose to participate in this hearing, and as there “were no obvious countervailing reasons”, Morgan J said:-

“The only factors in play are those which are in favour of the making of the order which is sought.”

Counsel for Private Eye then asked for an order for costs to be made against Mr Whyte. It was argued: “… considerable effort has been made by the applicant in terms of production of evidence and research in light of Mr Whyte’s failure to respond to any correspondence”.

The judge refused the application for costs made by Pressdram. He said, regarding the order sought:-

“You are not entitled to it as of right; you have to satisfy the Court that the Court should make it.  If you ask Mr Whyte or you tell him you are going to apply for the order, I think he is entitled to say, well he will leave it to you to satisfy the Court that that is what should happen.  Plainly if he had turned up and this had turned into a three-day hearing, I might have taken the view that any extra costs should be paid by him, if he were to fail.  However, he has not turned up so you have an unopposed application.  I think in those circumstances that it is just part of the costs of running your magazine.

I hope you sell more copies as a result and you will benefit accordingly.”


This case explains how Private Eye managed to know so much about the business affairs of Mr Whyte and Vital UK Ltd.

The magazine had its counsel in front of the judge with the application only days after the award-winning Mark Daly BBC documentary “The Men Who Sold the Jerseys”.

Nobody else bothered to do so.

The BBC did not need to as it had obtained access to papers and information via the Government’s Insolvency Service. But the rest of the media, who were without that information, did not bother looking.

Even though bloggers like the acclaimed and sadly missed RTC (of fame), Paul Brennan of CQN and Andy Muirhead at Scotzine, together with journalists led (by some distance) by Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, were exposing major planks of the Rangers story, the matter became widespread and public knowledge once BBC Scotland became interested, and followed up by Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.

Private Eye, especially under the editorship of Ian Hislop, has developed its reputation as a fearless exposer of iniquity. The economic implications of writing about Rangers, which have been discussed in connection with the Scottish media, did not apply to Private Eye.

Any news organisation in the UK could have applied for an order revealing details of Mr Whyte’s disqualification. No one else did.

Interestingly there are not, at least to my knowledge, equivalent procedures in Scotland for allowing news organisations access to court materials. And if there are, I would be astonished if the courts interpreted them as liberally as the English courts did in the cases where decisions of Morgan J and Toulson LJ. The move to Open Justice is very much to be welcomed. The courts are, in theory, public. But the “public” element only seems to be applicable where the public are actually in the court room. And even then, it is quite common for the proceedings to be totally inaudible to anyone seated in the public benches.

And finally, does it surprise anyone that Private Eye tried to get Mr Whyte to co-operate, but that he refused to engage with them!

Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Courts, Press

324 responses to “How Did “Private Eye” Get Hold of Papers about Craig Whyte’s Ban? It Went to Court and Asked for Them!

  1. Monti

    Charlotte fakes showing the msn how to do it!
    Why were this new club given a license?
    Corrupt in every way!

  2. Ed Pàislig

    Doesn’t it turn your stomach Cam? Whyte and that pipsqueak Stockbridge getting all excited over how they have “cleaned up the club” – refering to how they have ditched the creditors. You and I know it is the ordinary taxpayer who has been cheated.
    The only good point was Craigy pointing out that the fervent fanbase is a double-edged sword because if Celtic are in the ascendancy the Gers fans can become even uglier than normal (does that mean they get even fatter and get more tattoos?).
    But seriously, these guys make me puke – they suck up all the benefits of our society but they spend their lives trying to shaft the taxpayers.
    Bring on the revolution and hang the speculators!

    • Ed Pàislig

      Ticketus can’t be very happy to hear Craigy and the boys laughing out loud at their inability to carry out basic diligence on Scots Law. For that failure, Ticketus deserve to lose £27m. Craigy is also laughing about his personal indemnities to Ticketus being worthless. He is one cool trickster!

      • Niall Walker


        Is CW stating Ticketus has no claim against him under Scot’s Law ?

        • Niall,do you have trouble listening to the tapes,?

          • Niall Walker


            No more than any other deaf person.

            • @ Niall

              I do not need Moses after inhaling the fumes of a burning cannabis plant to tell me how to behave

              It would be a bit pointless Moses telling you anything ,you being deaf.

              as we are all Anonymous on here i would just like to state that i don’t for one minute believe you deaf, that it’s bad enough coming on here to post claiming to be an East Fife fan when your obviously a die in the wool deadco fan and struggling to become a sevco fan,
              to now claim deafness to try to win a wee point and deflect from your silly leading questions posts,
              you remind me of a wanker that used to do the same on the old Daily Record forum, always asking silly wee question of people, then coming in with a well rehearsed answer

    • SairFecht

      The bottom line is, the Big House must stay open!
      (Flab, hirple, slobber, drag, drool, glare, sniff…)

  3. duplesis

    wee bit of difficulty for Mr Whyte in Inverness Sheriff Court today…

    • Den

      If he had turned up: that would have been a real story !

      I guess one case is much like another if you are CW. Ther never seems to be any sanctions for his actions.

  4. willy wonka

    “A WARRANT for the arrest of disgraced former Rangers owner Craig Whyte was issued today after the millionaire businessman failed to turn up for the trial of his two former housekeepers.

    Mr Whyte had been personally served with a witness citation last month after the Crown revealed that their difficulties in tracking him down had been resolved.

    He was due to appear at Inverness Sheriff Court on Monday morning by 9.45am but by the time 53 year old Terence Horan and 50 year old Jane Hagan were called into the dock, there was no sign of Whyte.

    Fiscal depute Kelly Mitchell told Sheriff Margaret Neilson that all her witnesses but one – Craig Whyte – in the theft trial had appeared, including Whyte’s estranged wife, Kim.

    It then emerged that Mrs Whyte had phoned her husband who had told her he was in France.

    Ms Mitchell then spoke to Mr Whyte who claimed he had been countermanded as a witness and had received a letter.

    Ms Mitchell told the Sheriff this was incorrect, explaining that Mr Whyte had been countermanded for an earlier trial date.

    She said: “He had been postally cited and personally cited six weeks ago before today. He had previously indicated a willingness to appear.

    “Given that we have an unfinished trial today, it is unlikely this trial will commence and I am seeking an adjournment to another date due to lack of court time. However I am still seeking a warrant for Mr Whyte to prevent this from happening again. He knew he was due in court today.”

    The Sheriff asked the fiscal if it was appropriate for her to grant a warrant when the motion was for an adjournment due to lack of court time and not the failure of an essential witness to turn up.

    Ms Mitchell said her initial motion was because of the unfinished trial, but that she would make a new motion due to the failure of Whyte to turn up and in the public interest due to the high value of the items in the charge.

    The Sheriff then noted: “He doesn’t seem to be particularly interested in the high value.”

    Both defence laywers, Willie Young and Eilidh Macdonald opposed the motion, saying that the Crown case stood or fell upon Mr Whyte’s evidence.

    Mr Young said: “It was he who made the complaint to the police. No letter was sent out and there is no good reason why he would be confused. He is well aware of court procedure and the importance of being a witness would be apparent to him.

    “He appears to be in France and made no travel plans to come here. In the interests of fairness, the case should be deserted. Adjourning it will result in further inconvenience and expense.”

    Ms Macdonald agreed. “The Crown can’t proceed because Craig Whyte is not here. Mr Horan has an employment tribunal pending against Craig Whyte and that cannot proceed until the conclusion of this.”

    Sheirff Neilson rejected the Crown motion to adjourn due to lack of court time but granted the motion because of the lack of an essential Crown witness “with reluctance.”

    She also granted the warrant for Mr Whyte’s arrest. A new intermediate diet was fixed for August 13 and trial rescheduled for September 12.

    It is unusual for the Crown to seek a warrant for a witness who has not turned up at the first date for the trial. But Whyte’s recent history and the difficulties of serving the witness citation may have been a factor.

    It is believed that Whyte could be detained by the Border Agency the minute he sets foot back in the UK and then arrested by police.

    He would then be held until the new date for the trial. An international arrest warrant could also be applied for if there is a considerable delay in exercising the warrant in this country.

    However it is not uncommon for warrants to be exercised with discretion, and if he is traced within a few days and gives an undertaking to appear at court on a certain date, he could avoid being held in remand.

    If he did not turn up on that occasion, he would be held in contempt and/or prosecuted.

    Kim Whyte remained in the witness room until the hearing was formally discharged and re-set.

    Hagan and Horan, who both now live in Bicester, traveled north for the trial on Sunday and appeared to confirm their pleas of not guilty.

    The pair deny stealing a huge array of items from Castle Grant between June 1 and September 7, 2012 where they worked.

    Both are alleged to have stolen items including a quad bike, quantities of coins and Dutch guilders, a silver photograph frame, a hip flask and cups, three sets of cufflinks, a fuel card, a telescope and case.

    They are also charged with stealing other items including three pens, two lamps, headed notepaper, five chairs and a table, a chest, a compass, two wooden bowls, a photograph album, a trunk, a planter, two jumpers, a bin, a wheel, two heaters, a bag of electrical items, ornaments and a clay trap.

    Both had their bail continued and refused to comment afterwards.”

    Your day is coming Craigy.

    • barcabuster

      You have to give wee Craigy a break mate. He has a lot on his plate at the mo, and has bigger fish to fry. Then, I am sure he will be looking forward to his day in court as much as we all are. It would be so much cheaper if he can avoid it, but he seems to be taking a pragmatic stance.

  5. AD Bryce
    June 10, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    My apologies, your questions…
    “Do you think sevco should pay creditors as an act of goodwill?” No – there is no obligation on those innocent-of-crime-A to make amends for Crime-A.

    try again, an act of goodwill and an obligation are not one and the same, so cut out the deflection, a simple yes or no on the goodwill question.

    Crime , what crime are you referring to ?

  6. Anonymous

    There is little doubt in my mind that Mr Whyte will serve some time for something in all of this. Who will join in him in there is less uncertain, but i would imagine a few people are having some sleepless nights just now.

    Will also be interesting if he actually is arrested right now. Can you tweet from prison ?

    • willy wonka

      Withey is definitely going too.

    • you claim to have NO DOUBT, then you say for “something” !! not very specific, your NO DOUBT has a ring of wishful thinking about it,
      please tell us what you think Whyte will go to jail for in relation to RFC 1872 and his take over of the club, or of his dealings with Green and Sevco,
      you have NO DOUBT so please tell us what is it you have NO DOUBT about

      • willy wonka

        Where did I say, “for something” ?
        I’ve been very specific when posting on this matter over the past few months.
        Whyte and Withey will NO DOUBT be charged with fraud. With possibly / probably Muir and Murray being dragged in if it can be proved that a fraudulent scheme was carried out.

      • Anonymous

        “wishful thinking” ?

        I dont understand that. Can you explain ?

        As to the “something” then there are many things on the go with Whyte. And i believe “something” will catch up with him.

        And others.

  7. SairFecht

    I hope all decent-minded Rangers supporters will club together (financially, not physically) to bail Craig Whyte out. Here is the man who is responsible for preventing the expiration of Rangers before the conclusion of season 2011-12, and who by preventing £13m in HMRC payments and withholding £18m debts to Ticketus ensured that the season could be played out and administration, liquidation and the ultimate reforming of Rangers could be carried through. Now it seems all they want to do is beat up the fall guy. No Craig, no continued existence, no interminable posts from AD and Niall about what constitutes the entity of existence and other such mind-boggling metaphysical, existential angst.

    • willy wonka

      Remember to say “thanks” to the guy responsible if your house gets broken into.

      • Steven Brennan

        Craig whyte as far as I know hasn’t committed any crime, other than tax avoidance.
        By committing this crime he kept rangers alive till end of season.
        So why do sevco call him the bad guy?
        Chico is the real shyster who has stiffed everyone involved
        Glasgow truly is Green and Whyte

        • willy wonka

          Funny how all you guys thoughts on Whyte have gone through a 180 turn since he left Ibrox.
          Green has done committed no illegal act. Whyte has.

          • Whyte is accusing Green of fraud, if you’ve evidence to prove Whyte wrong give Police Scotland a ring, save us tax payers some money.

            I for one don’t believe Whyte is a good guy, nobody connected to the RFC 1872/Sevco disgrace is anywhere near to being a good guy

            • willy wonka

              Whyte hasn’t made any complaint of “fraud” to Police Scotland. Whyte hasn’t made an official complaint of “fraud” to anybody. All he has done is sell stories to the press.
              So your tax money is secure and there is absolutely no need, nor will there ever be, for me to waste my time.
              But again, don’t let that stop you. Lol.

      • barcabuster

        I would if all he took was my fecking debt!

      • SDM sold him the keys for a £1, hardly breaking and entering, SDM has you well and truly DUPED,

        • willy wonka

          Murray didn’t have me “duped”. I saw through Murray around 9 years before he left. I posted about him often enough on various sites during that time.

          • @willy wonka
            Remember to say “thanks” to the guy responsible if your house gets broken into.

   been on to SDM for 9 years yet you imply that the big hoose was broken in to.

            the man you were on to for 9 years led the way by claiming he was duped, just about ever sevconian as now demonised Whyte, while ignoring the role played by the dark knight in the downfall of RFC 1872

            Whyte kept the club going for a season to enable the whole same club lie to work it’s way into the system.
            Massive tax theft, just to enable the club with a ” proud History” of a 100 years of sectarianism to carry forward this history in the form of Sevco,
            Rangers Football club LIMITED was a business in it’s own right, it sold shares to generate income, it went bust and now awaits the liquidators final stamp of humiliation and disgrace.

            • willy wonka

              You’re just not paying attention, are you ?
              I’ve stated clearly on here that Murray , LBG and Whyte have been involved in committing a fraud.
              The big hoose wasn’t “broken into”. The owner invited the housebreaker inside, told him where the valuables were and walked away.
              “Massive tax theft” ? Not according to the FTTT. Or did you forget ?

            • arb urns

              @ willy wonka

              millions were lost to the treasury through illegal tax evasion via the dos and ebt schemes or did u forget ? lol

  8. barcabuster

    These assets have been sold to a new company, which happens also to be running a football club, deploying the same assets to that purpose.———————————————————–
    ALSO running a football club…….So what club would that be?. Are there 2 Rangerses?
    An old cowboy saying,, “Don’t play with guns, if you don’t have steel toe-tectors.
    Would you also be kind enough to post a link which shows association membership as an asset of Rangers, and was purchased through the liquidation process.

    • Rangers was a business in it’s own right, it sold shares in it’s self, it generated it’s own income by selling the shares,
      RANGERS became a business, it did not hand it’s self over to a holding company, if it was not Rangers football club that became a business that what Rangers was it, and why does the official website have this on the club history section ?

      If it later belonged to a holding company tell us who,what and when ?

      Rangers FC LTD, a business, it went bust, it’s shares became worthless, it died, A scam to keep public order is getting pulled to keep the mob happy, and to line the pockets of the spivs and shysters that are connected to this dead club and it’s bastard offspring.
      Murray ran it into the ground, Whyte was brought in to deflect from the knights fuck up, then the Green and Whyte show hit the town,
      on and on it goes and round and round it spins,

      Listen to the tapes, every last one of them is at it, they even talk about Kenwright at Everton being willing to withhold monies due, and Smiths connection to him,
      they say, Kenwrights a GOOD guy, he will deprive them of the cash, a good guy, these people, just like the fans that support this tribute act, do not have the first idea about right and wrong,
      hundreds of creditors get ripped of for millions of £££££££’s and not one person at Ibrox is the least bit bothered, as long as the same club story keeps getting repeated then social order will be maintained, let any one say that’s a lie and see the full force of the Sevco support descend on them, They demanded that people lose their jobs for saying they were a new club, they send bombs and bullets in the post and countless death threats are issued, all because they are determined to try to hold on to Celtics shirt tails, to die in the shadow of the big cup, running up £millions in debts to fail to match, never mind better, Celtics achievements is to much for the mob to accept

      • Ed Paisley

        Thanks for your post. I couldn’t agree more. David Murray knew that he could no longer use HBOS money to indirectly bankroll Rangers and he shat a brick. He dream’t of the torches and pitchforks at his door if he fell behind Celtic and, like a typical chickenshit coward, he handed the club to know corporate trickster Sir Craig Whyte so he could make a clean exit (with the connivance of his buddies in the MSM who he knew wouldn’t hold him to account for his actions).
        I am convinced that the SEVCO supporters know that David Murray is the real villain of the piece. He is the man who delivered the terminal patient into the hands of the undertaker Craig Whyte. So why do they want to blame Whyte? Because they all supported Murray’s reckless strategy and he delivered their tainted 9 in a row. We all know, of course, that it was the Big Cup Murray was after (hard luck diddy)!

      • willy wonka

        Might have escaped your attention but Rangers didn’t just “match” Selliks achievements – they are STILL the countrys most successful club. Therefore they outstripped them.

        • when did your lot match the European victory,when did your lot win a quadruple ,?

          wee rangers guy showing his mates the photos of RFC 1872 achievement,
          they start of in black in White then they turn in to colour

          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league
          that’s one when we won the league

          What else have you done worth talking about, what other acclaimed trophy have your lot held up to a packed stadium and had the crowd go crazy with pride.

          • willy wonka

            54 titles.
            And still counting.
            That’s over the whole history of Scottish football.
            Beating Inter Milan reserves was many many years ago. Time you let that one go. It’ll twist your mind if you dwell on it.

    • Oldco ran a football club, recognised by the authorities as Rangers Football Club, founded 1872.

      Newco now runs a football club, recognised by the authorities as Rangers Football Club, founded 1872.

      Which of those sentences do you disagree with? Do i need to wheel out the same old official sources??

      Whether you think its Rangers, whether I think its Rangers, whether Phil Macgiliobhaiin thinks its Rangers – frankly, who cares,

      The football authorities run football – they say it’s Rangers. Game, set and match.

      • Ed Pàislig

        Congratulations A.D., you referred to Mr Mac Giolla Bhain by his proper name. Well done!

      • Paul

        Oldco ran a football club, recognised by the authorities as Rangers Football Club, founded 1872
        Newco now runs a football club, recognised by the authorities as Rangers Football Club, founded 1872

        Ok how about the first sentence been debt free un-liquidated Rangers ran a football club, recognised by the authorities as Rangers Football Club, founded 1872
        Sevco risen from the ashes of a liquidated Rangers football club now known as Rangers International Football Club, founded 2012 recognised by the authorities (who make the rules to suit) as Rangers.

        The fact that your name has changed due to liquidation and not a change for change sake or marketing purposes etc etc, is fact your club is dead. If it was not dead the name would have remained, game over AD, After Death still in Denial.

    • willy wonka

      @ ARB URNS, ” illegal tax evasion ” ?
      Are you another one who slept through the FTTT result ?
      Perfectly legal scheme which HMRC decided to look at retrospectively after it had been running for many years. Even then they FAILED.
      And will do again.

  9. @Niall

    Rangers has never been a football company, but it has always been a football club.
    please explain

    Rangers formally became a business company.

    Rangers Football Club Limited ,

    if RFC Limited was a business and it was not a football company then what type of company was it and why was it selling shares in the football club to raise money, those shares continued to be traded up until Whyte bought most of them for a £1 and Green was desperate to get his hands on them to the point of deceiving Whyte in the hope that a cva could be achieved, no shares no CVA

    Rangers FOOTBALL club Limited, a football club that turned itself into a limited company, that company is now undergoing liquidation.

    • Niall Walker


      ” Rangers has never been a football company, but it has always been a football club…………….. please explain.”

      Certainly old bean, hang onto your Irish jig.

      A football club is defined as a football company’s undertaking to participate in football, a football company without this undertaking is not a football club, Rangers have held such an undertaking since its inception, it has always been a football club and never a football company, a football company may sell footballs this does not make it a football club.

      Naming a football company a ” football club ” does not alter any of the above facts, it is the football company’s undertaking that identifies it as a football club not its name.

      I tried to tell you this in one of my first posts on the topic, one can only be a club if one is a member of a club, you cannot participate on one’s own, one must have have an undertaking to participate in football against others under the same rules. A football club cannot exist in of itself, its existence is relative to an undertaking to play against others, a football company can sell footballs in of itself.

      Hope this fully explains my statement.

      p.s I must confess I am neither deaf nor a Sevco fan, I am too busy denying the holocaust to listen to the tapes. I asked those who had to fill me in, and this has upset you, sorry about that , please forgive me and accept my confession and my sincere apology.

    • The people that ran the club decided to form a company to protect themselves by creating a legal entity to be responsible for the running of the club.

      Now a different legal entity is responsible for the club.

      The football authorities recognise it as the same association football club.

      So hard to understand isn’t it…

      • barcabuster

        @ AD Bryce. The football authorities recognise it as the same association football club.

        So hard to understand isn’t it………………………….. …………. ………….. ………………. ………….. The football authorities, then decided to transfer association membership from Rangers…..Erm……to Rangers? Or from. Rangers to……Erm……Somebody with Rangers in its name?
        Which one is correct Mr AD Bryce. I know you like that wee game.

  10. coatbrigbhoy, its a waste of time. They cant explain it because its the truth, and that is the enemy of all still at the denial stage.

  11. JohnBhoy


    SEASON 2012/13 has been one to remember for everyone connected with Celtic Football Club…

    It was a season in which the club celebrated on and off the pitch, as Neil Lennon and his young side chased down the SPL title, and an unprecedented 36th Scottish Cup success

    There was also an unforgettable UEFA Champions League campaign, which saw the team scale new heights, and included a victory over one of club football’s greatest sides in the defeat of Barcelona which will live long in the memory.

    It’s a story about a team that continues to win trophies, a story of an unbroken tradition dating back to 1887 and a story that’s been 125 years in the making.

    [Celtic website]

  12. Niall Walker

    I have read a degree of moral outrage on behalf of the creditors, and this outrage seems to me to be the main thrust of the argument against Rangers unbroken history.

    I think this is a perfectly legitimate emotional argument, I oppose abortion ( except in exceptional circumstances), the fact it is legal does not alter the way I feel. I personally am not interested in the legal/biological technicalities, I am interested in the spirit of humanity.

    If anyone feels Rangers are dead because they consider their actions immoral then no legal/football technicalities should alter this view, they are interested in the spirit of a football club.

    • arb urns

      rangers history is now broken into pre-liquidation and post liquidation, full membership and associate membership to distinguish but two eras, rangers fc and the rangers fc seems like a third……. given the exceptional circumstances of a ‘ contractually obliged’ cva/cvl deal that had to pass through three sets of governing bodies but sadly failed………………………..

      in other words a ‘football club’ abortion.

  13. Niall Walker

    I will be thrashing around Loch Lomond golf course tomorrow morning and I will be dancing for no rain, if cam comes in talking gobbledegook then he is suffering from Commando concussion.
    Talking about spirits leads me to correct the numerous misconceptions about golf, Fife is the home of golf and regardless of its origins golf grew in Fife as a game for all classes. Showers and lockers were used by miners etc to wash and change BEFORE they played, not after. Medals were done by ballot to encourage socialization and avoid cliques and its rules/etiquette protects egalitarianism, there is no ” them and us “.
    I find the snobbery that has infested golf damaging to this spirit, but Fife has suffered the least, we Fifers are still more interested in your handicap than your status.

    • arb urns

      This matches yer gratuitous alienation drivel…..two clubs on one course in your own town…. who are the etcs after the ‘miners’ who are these people a think we should be told a really do to quote the well known sevconian.

      • Niall Walker


        How do you know about the Thistle and LGS ?

        I clearly stated Fife had been the least affected, if the difference between these two clubs is Fife’s worst example of elitism then its doing great, and the etc was any worker who got dirty or wore overalls, in my days it was Balfours, DCL, NSF, RGC and Donaldsons.

    • JohnBhoy

      Golf in Fife “a game for all classes?” The Royal and Ancient golf club in St Andrews was created by, and for, noblemen and gentlemen. It remains a private club, a bastion of male only sport with fees that effectively exclude the lower classes. Hardly a symbol of egalitarianism. The club once displayed a sign “No dogs, no women”. Like the old Rangers, a national disgrace.

      • Niall Walker


        I did say despite its origins, however as a teenager I played the old course on a Sunday by putting my ball in the shute, back in the days before St Andrews became a golf corporation.

        I would hardly describe both young and old Tom Morris as the elite of society

      • Niall Walker


        Any resident of St Andrews can play a selection of golf courses in St Andrews including the Old Course for a season ticket of £150 or so, not too hard for the lower classes of St Andrews, socialism has its boundaries.

  14. Monti




  15. Monti


  16. AD Bryce (Bryce9a)

    “Following arguments about whether Rangers were a new club or are the same club under new owners after their liquidation last year, a measure to expand the definition of a club to include their owner or operator will also be considered.”

  17. Anonymous

    Grant Thornton believe RFC IL were bought using “Financial Assistance.”

    I wonder when the authorities will reach the same inevitable conclusion.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s