Another One Bites The Dust – The Anti-Rangers Campaign Continues

Now it can be told.

The problems of Rangers Football Club have seen the embattled supporters turned this way and that, like defenders facing a Jinky Johnstone run down the wing.

One minute there were certainties.

Rangers would spend ten pounds for every five their opponents would outlay.

Rangers would buy top quality players, or at least pay top-quality prices.

Rangers’ Scottish players would all be capped for the country.

Opposing teams would see what seemed to be many unfortunate but timely “honest mistakes” by referees in games involving Rangers.

Rangers would win the majority of the competitions they played for (except for European games where the Ibrox magic too often failed them).

But Rangers were top dogs – bankrolled by Sir David Murray and the Bank of Scotland.

Advertisement

Rangers.co.uk Ltd Operates “Rangers” Website Under Director Donald McIntyre. Could It Be Sued by Liquidator?

In which I wonder about the operator of the “Rangers” website, and am rather surprised to see who the only Director is. I also look at the possibility that the liquidator of Rangers Football Club PLC could end up taking court action for payment against Rangers.co.uk Ltd, now owned, presumably, by one variant of Sevco.  I am also happy to see that Mr Green is quicker with his forms than Mr Whyte was. Finally I consider whether there is the slightest possibility that the administrators could have missed the chance of raising additional sums for creditors.

——————————————————-

The website Rangers.co.uk is the official website of Rangers Football Club. The terms and conditions of the site state:-

“This website is operated by Rangers.co.uk Limited (“Rangers.co.uk”), a joint venture between Rangers Football Club and Perform.”

“Perform” is still listed at the bottom of each page of the site as “powering” the site.

As Rangers.co.uk Ltd is a separate company, I thought I would have a wee look to see how it has got on, and what its present status is.

Saturday Musings on Rangers, EBT’s and Directors – After C4 News

NB – This is a copy (with spelling corrections) of a comment I have made on the RTC thread “Evading Avoidance”. I commend RTC’s piece to anyone who has not read it.

————————

 

The two changes in tax and insolvency law which most impinge on Rangers were (1) HMRC losing its preferential creditor status and (b) the addition of the anti-avoidance provisions.

It was felt that the taxman sitting on the shoulder of indebted businesses, and grabbing the pot ahead of unsecured creditors stifled enterprise, and discouraged risk taking. That is arguable, but in “normal” cases HMRC often will not hold enough debt to block a CVA. Here they can, and as published by them in their policies and guidance, will do so.

The anti-avoidance rules, requiring accountants to “register” schemes is a bit like inviting computer hackers to break into your system and rewarding them for doing so, as long as they help you fix the vulnerability.

It was projected that at the very worst the two measures would balance out, or indeed lead to a bigger tax take, as fewer businesses would fail.

Unfortunately for Rangers, as Mr Baxendale Walker alleged last night, RFC did not operate the scheme properly at all. (As an aside, I am sure that the solicitors’ rooms in Scotland are deprived by not having a character like Mr BW sitting in them.)

There are numerous “big questions” which one would like to ask the main players.

The one which strikes me for today regarding the EBT’s is why no provision at all was made for the potential tax bill. I don’t mean a “paper” provision, as I recall Adam having long arguments about many months ago, but a real one.

The first Tax Determination re EBT’s reached Rangers in February 2008! Would a prudent company have salted away say £5 million a year towards a potential bill? By now they would have had £20 million in the pot, and at the very least have been able to make more concrete proposals to settle with HMRC.

If, mirabile dictu, they had won the case 100%, then suddenly there would have been a “war chest” with real money in it.

So, as well as allegedly getting the operation of the EBT wrong, and thus opening up RFC to the tax bills, the “ancien regime” failed to make even the most rudimentary of provision for the case going wrong. I cannot imagine that (a) standing the legal advice the Board would have been receiving and (b) the alleged state of knowledge of Messrs Bain, McClelland etc the old Board would have expected for a minute to have no bills to pay.

Of course, if Sir David Murray had succeeded in his plan to sell early on, then the tax case might have been glossed over as a distant and unthreatening cloud on the horizon (apologies for the mixed metaphor and I do not suggest any underhand “glossing over”).

Finally, I wonder if the administrators might give consideration to actions against the directors or former directors personally where it could be alleged that breaches of duty by the directors has led to Rangers Football Club PLC suffering losses…

Be Careful What You Wish For – Alex Thomson of Channel 4 Breaks Big Rangers News

 

Alex Thomson is a distinguished war correspondent, and one of the UK’s top news broadcasters. Recently he has been looking into Scottish football, and especially the Rangers Tax Case.

Various pundits and fan sites have accused him of being deluded and following the hidden agendas of others. He has even been described as a dupe, and taken in by “Timmy” conspiracies.

When last week he fronted a Channel 4 news piece on the story there were various disparaging remarks about the lack of anything new.

As I say in the heading – be careful what you wish for!

Tonight he has a piece on the story on Channel 4 News, which definitely moves the saga on.

You can read his article here.

Some choice highlights:-

Mike McGill, former Rangers director – admitting that none of the EBT “loans” have ever been repaid.

Correspondence from Martin Bain, former Chief Executive, looking to have his pay rise put through the trust “obviously as a discretionary bonus it cannot be contractual”

Martin Bain referring to payment through the EBT to players coaches “and more recently John Greig”.

Martin Bain (again) writing to chairman John McClelland referring to having his contract letter “shredded”.

As Mr Thomson concludes his piece – “what they were doing could well be perfectly legitimate but it’s questions like these upon which the tax case may hinge”.

I had speculated about Mr Bain’s dropping of his court action yesterday. Today leads to national UK coverage which, at the very best, looks bad for him and for Rangers.

Those who criticised Mr Thomson for being “taken in” might have to look at their views again.

Martin Bain v Rangers – Settlement Agreed? All Friends Again?

News broke yesterday which rather surprised me.

“Martin Bain Drops damages action against Rangers” stated the BBC.

I wonder if the settlement of this case, as I discuss below, is a prelude to Mr Bain throwing his hat into the ring with one of the bidders, perhaps with the Blue Knights?

————-

Mr Bain’s statement, issued through his lawyers, Levy & McRae, included the following:-

“Everyone close to Rangers Football Club knows that I am, and always have been, totally committed to the club and that remains my position. As chief executive and part of the independent board, our job was to assess and highlight to all stakeholders if we believed there was uncertainty over the future financial viability of the club under new ownership.

“Unfortunately, the independent board had no legal power to block the transaction and Sir David Murray made it plain that he wanted to sell.

“I strongly recommended on more than one occasion that Craig Whyte should not be allowed to buy the club. Unfortunately that forceful representation was not accepted and when he took over I was suspended and my contract ripped up.

“With what has subsequently transpired, it is quite obvious why he disposed of me in the manner he did. I was further vilified in the press and continue to be subjected to endless rumours and attacks.

“I had no option but to pursue a claim based on Craig Whyte’s actions – the litigation was a response to his actions and not those of Rangers Football Club.

“I firmly believed it was important to make sure he would have to explain everything he did in a court of law.

“Because of the legal process it has not been possible or appropriate to make public comment, which has been extremely hard given the flow of misinformation and falsehoods both myself and the club had been subjected to.

“In light of the club’s current position I instructed my lawyers to advise the administrators that I am willing to discontinue the legal action. Subject to recovering the costs associated as a result of this action, I will give over to the administrators the remainder of the money that was arrested as part of my case in an effort to help the club.

“I always have done, and will continue to do, everything I can to help the club in these difficult times.”

————-