The Huns

HMRC has instigated an arrestment order which has led to a seven-figure sum being ring-fenced in Rangers’ account.
This relates to a [color="#004000"]£2.8m bill facing the Ibrox club.
A Rangers source earlier told BBC Scotland that a six-figure sum had already been paid, but that the club disputed the total they were due HMRC.
The taxman has now moved to call in what he believes he is owed, and the ring-fenced sum will remain untouchable by Rangers until the matter is settled.
The club will still be able to use any funds other than this sum in their bank account to continue operating.


Oh the irony of it all.

this could be the end of them- if they dont have more money on hand than the 2.8 million ringfenced then they have major liquidity issues & are fucked

The tax man has just taken a big slice of the huns money, its in a suspended account where the huns cant get near it. They are not getting it back! Ever!

They will have funds left, but critically with no extra european income from match days, and the ring fencing of half the season ticket money ( for ticketUs, and Lloyds ) to pay debts, it will leave them very short in the cash flow department. They’ve pawned the merchandising, the match day catering and have no other substantial income to bridge these “taxing” times

With the improved salary deals for 4 top players, they will burn through the cash in jig time.

I think they will be lucky to get past November before they are trading insolvent unless someone puts thier hand in thier pocket or a bank gives them a line of credit.

Both these options seem very unlikely as the big killer tax bill first teir tribunal is set to resume in Nov and as things stand, the huns are are deep deep deep shit.

This would be terrible news for cellic.

I have tended to ignore a lot of the reports about the huns’ financial woes because they’ve still managed to spend more than Celtic over the past few years and taken the last few leagues too. But excrement really seems to be hitting the fan and even their biggest media cheerleaders are starting to talk about how grave the situation is. First there was the tax man putting a lien on funds, as TASE revealed in the thread opening post. They’re now up in court today over non-payment of a GBP£35k legal fee for advice they received when fighting UEFA’s decision last season to ban their support from attending an away fixture for sectarian chanting. There’s also talk that latest players’ wages only included the basic amount and none of the bonuses due for things like win, clean sheet, appearance, goal etc. And they allegedly made up that phantom deadline day GBP£9m offer from Liverpool for Jelavic because it would allow them increase his value in the balance sheet and help them comply with some financial ratio or other than they were in danger of breaching. :lol:

Another thing that cracked me up actually was a number of Swiss dailies reporting that Sion have received an avalanche of correspondence from huns pledging to fight with them and sending them dossiers alleging collusion between Celtic and UEFA. They have made up a new name for UEFA; it is UNSEEN FENIAN HAND. I hate huns but they’re great entertainment at times.

An informative piece on the current plight of the huns from BBC. It’s quite well written and a fairly measured piece on what has caused the concern about the club’s solvency.

A giant on the ropes: Rangers’ tax troubles Q&A

There is a storm brewing over Ibrox, the home of a true giant in British football For 90 minutes at Ibrox this Sunday, all will seem normal in Scottish football.

Rangers and Celtic will tear into each other, more than 50,000 fans at the game will roar themselves hoarse, thousands more will shout at their computers, radios and televisions, and police in Glasgow, Belfast and beyond will ready themselves for a lively shift. It will be business as usual for the Old Firm.

But for Rangers, the champions and current league leaders, the past week has been anything but business as usual. Two legal setbacks in an Edinburgh court have broken the seal on Rangers’ darkest secret: they are staring apparent financial ruin in the face.

This epiphany has brought forth a flood of questions from fans, detractors and other interested observers: most of these can be summed up as variations on shock or schadenfreude. I cannot promise to answer all of them but I will try to tackle the most pressing.

Q: What on earth is going on?

A: Rangers are being pursued by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for two unpaid bills. With interest and late-payment penalties going back more than 10 years, they now total in the region of £54m, although the final figure could be even higher according to some sources.

Q: How did that happen?

A: The only simple way to answer this is to start with an important distinction: tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal. Rangers, like most companies and wealthy individuals, have tried to reduce their tax bills. Some people say this is the cynical exploitation of loopholes, others say it is business (and it is, to be fair, pretty big business).

There is, however, a fine line between avoidance and evasion and Rangers MAY have smudged it over the last decade with two schemes designed to reward their top earners in the most “tax efficient” way.

Q: What did they do?

A: Let’s deal with the biggest bill first.

Between 2001 and 2010, Rangers paid almost £48m into an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT). A trust is a legal creation that enables somebody to own an asset on behalf of somebody else. The first person is the trustee and the second is the beneficiary. Company pension schemes are a common example of a trust.

With EBTs, an employer pays money into a trust and that money is paid out to the beneficiaries in the form of loans. These loans are not subject to income tax or National Insurance. In fact, most of these trusts are based in offshore tax havens so they are hardly taxed at all.

Anyway, these loans are a bit like the ones you would offer a hard-up friend on a night out - here’s £20, pay me back when you can but I’m not going to remember this so don’t worry about it. Here, however, is the heart of HMRC’s case.

For an EBT to stay on the right side of the avoidance/evasion line, these payments cannot be made on a contractual basis, as that would make them wages and therefore subject to the usual deductions. So they should, on occasion, be postponed and even refused by the trustee, who is, in theory, acting independently of the employer anyway.

HMRC says Rangers’ EBT did not work like this and was, for all intents and purposes, a tax scam. It also says it has proof of this in the form of documents and emails between Ibrox’s top brass and players’ agents. So, last year, an angry taxman hit Rangers with a bill for £35m in unpaid tax and interest and £14m in penalties.

Rangers, already in debt to their banker and other creditors to the tune of almost £30m, denied the accusation of tax evasion and went to a tribunal in October to argue their case.

That hearing lasted for two weeks but when no decision was reached it was rescheduled for a further three weeks this spring. Again, no decision came and a final tribunal hearing will take place in November.

Q: What about the other bill?

A: This one emerged in the club’s accounts this April and is related to a different tax avoidance ruse operated between 1999 and 2003.

Called a Discounted Options Scheme, it is a more complicated version of the EBT as it funnels what experts call the “disguised remuneration” through a “money-box company” set up in a tax haven. The beneficiary then gets shares in the company and you can guess the rest.

It was, for a while, a popular way for bankers to avoid paying tax on their bonuses but HMRC closed the loophole and has been chasing up lost tax ever since.

The sum Rangers owe - and they have agreed this much - is £2.8m in back taxes and interest. What they continue to dispute is the £1.4m HMRC is demanding in penalties. The undisputed amount is due now, in fact, it’s overdue again, if that makes sense.

The taxman has been applying considerable pressure in recent weeks, via the courts, prompting some to wonder if Rangers can even pay this relatively small sum, which brings us to this week’s shenanigans.

Q: The two legal defeats in Edinburgh?

A: Yes, broadly speaking.

In the first, Rangers were taken to court over an unpaid legal bill of £35,000. The amount and what it was for are not relevant to this tale but what came out in court last week is. The law firm in question effectively put in black and white what some had been saying for some time: Rangers might go bust, we want our money now.

If that message had not got through it was spelled out in bold type all over the Scottish tabloids this week when Martin Bain, the former Rangers chief executive, successfully persuaded a judge to freeze £480,000 of Rangers’ money just in case they might not be able to pay the £1.3m in damages he wants for breach of contract.

The judge ring-fenced half of what the life-long Rangers fan was asking to freeze because he agreed there was a “real and substantial risk of insolvency”. That would make a win for Bain in vain.

But what really hurt Rangers’ new owner Craig Whyte, the man who pushed Bain out, was the leaking of court papers filed by the ex-CEO that revealed just how exposed Rangers are to an HMRC victory.

And Bain should know, he went to work at Ibrox in 1996, joined the board in 2000 and ran the business for former owner Sir David Murray from 2005.

Having recently mortgaged off the next few years’ catering revenues at Ibrox, Whyte can afford to pay the smaller tax bill and worry about filling the hole in the club’s finances later. But being forced to pay even a hefty chunk of the big bill will kill a club that played a European final only three years ago.

Q: So why did Whyte buy Rangers with all this hanging over them?

A: The only sensible answer to this question is “pass” as so much is uncertain and so little is known for sure about Whyte’s finances.

But in the time it has taken me to write this piece, the 40-year-old businessman has issued a passionate denial that Rangers are at the abyss.

“The club is trading normally and has a strong balance sheet,” Whyte said via Rangers’ official website, before lambasting Bain and others for wrongly suggesting the club is on the brink.

“No one can say with 100% certainty what the outcome will be - that is why there is a tribunal,” Whyte added. “(But) I can say categorically that we will be fighting the club’s case most vigorously.”

And that, with an Old Firm game looming, is all any Rangers fan can ask for.…w-west-15377454

20 October 2011 Last updated at 18:36 GMT

‘Criminality’ claims over Rangers owner Craig Whyte

By Mark Daly BBC Scotland Investigations Correspondent

Mr Whyte took over an 85% stake in the Glasgow club five months ago

Evidence of alleged criminality in the past business dealings of Rangers FC’s new owner has been uncovered by a BBC Scotland investigation.

It found that Craig Whyte was banned from being a director for seven years.

The BBC heard allegations that Mr Whyte controlled a company despite his ban, an offence which could incur a two-year jail term. It was later wound up after misleading potential shareholders.

Mr Whyte denied all the claims “in the strongest possible terms”.

The 40-year-old businessman from Motherwell owns an 85% stake in Rangers.

Mr Whyte paid Sir David Murray £1 for the Glasgow club six months ago, and settled its £18m debt to Lloyds Banking Group.
Rangers: An Inside Story, which will be broadcast on BBC1 Scotland at 19:00, heard allegations about the man who took over the 138-year-old club in May.

The BBC understands Mr Whyte was banned from acting as a director after the government began pursuing his company, Vital Holdings Ltd, for failing to produce satisfactory accounts.

The programme also uncovered evidence that HM Revenue and Customs was chasing some of Mr Whyte’s companies for unpaid taxes.

The programme heard claims about Mr Whyte’s involvement in a company called Re-tex Plastic Technology, during his ban.
Re-tex was wound up in 2003, after it offered to sell shares to the public using company statements which were said to contain false and misleading information.

The firm was investigated by the UK government’s Insolvency Service - the agency that probes corrupt business practice.
Robert Burns, head of investigations at the agency, said: “We took the view that the company was being controlled, or certainly had the involvement of, an individual who was disqualified. That raised concerns.”

‘Be prosecuted’

When asked who that individual was, he said: "I’m talking about Craig Whyte, who had been disqualified as a director in June 2000, for seven years.

"We found a number of suggestions, and indeed evidence, that he was in some way, shape or form, behind the company. For
“In relation to his involvement in running the company then it is an offence and the individual can be prosecuted. Clearly there would have had to be a criminal investigation and a trial.”

Responding to the claims, Mr Whyte’s lawyers said he had a small investment in Re-tex, but was never a director or a de facto director.

Mr Burns told the BBC that his team had uncovered evidence that Mr Whyte had taken two sums of £100,000 from the company, apparently to pay a tax bill.

“There’s no trace of the money being received by the Inland Revenue,” Mr Burns said.

He told the programme that Mr Whyte had appointed fake auditors called Mullet and Co, which signed off misleading Re-tex accounts.

Mr Whyte’s lawyers said their client had no control over Re-tex’s bank account or finances and denied “in the strongest possible terms” withdrawing any money from the company accounts or appointing any auditors.

‘Outsourcing services’

The Insolvency Service believes a convicted fraudster, Kevin Sykes, was one of the individuals behind Mullet and Co.
Mr Burns said: "We have investigated a number of companies which Kevin Sykes has been behind.

“We also know Mr Sykes because of a Serious Fraud Office investigation. In October 2004, he was convicted and received a sentence in total of eight years for his part in a theft from a pension fund which totalled £3m.”

This conviction came three years after Sykes’ last known involvement with Craig Whyte.

The documentary reveals other previous links between Mr Whyte and Sykes, with the latter acting as secretary in four of Mr Whyte’s companies which were dissolved in the late 1990s.

Mr Whyte moved to Monaco for several years around 2000, following his disqualification and the demise of 24 companies in which he was involved.

In March 2001, Sykes told his bankruptcy hearing at the High Court in London that he travelled to Monaco to be paid in cash by Mr Whyte for “outsourcing services”.

Mr Whyte’s lawyers said its client had never been a close business associate of Kevin Sykes, and denied paying him a retainer.

Rangers’ finances have hit the headlines in recent months, after a judge ruled more than £3m of its assets should be frozen, pending further court action.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh heard that a disputed tax bill of up to £49m left the SPL champions at a “real and substantial risk of insolvency”. The tax hearing is due to begin next month.

The documentary comes just days after Rangers announced it was withdrawing all co-operation with the BBC.

In a statement, Craig Whyte and Rangers FC said: "As a result of the BBC’s approach, Mr Whyte and Rangers FC believe there is a strong risk that the programme will mislead and misinform viewers about matters concerning the club, and has suspended the BBC’s access to the club.

“Mr Whyte and Rangers wish to reassure viewers - and those of the club’s valued fans who may be watching - that the best interests and secure future of the club are and will remain their priority.”

BBC Scotland Investigates - Rangers: The Inside Story was broadcast on BBC1 Scotland at 19:00 on Thursday 20 October, and will be available for a week on the iPlayer.

Here’s that BBC Scotland programme:

Surreal interview with Craig Whyte in the Scotsman today. He’s apoplectic with rage with the programme, but hasn’t seen it and doesn’t want to refute any of the specific allegations.

[size=2]Q. So you watched the BBC documentary on Thursday evening?[/size]

[size=2]A. No, I haven’t actually seen it. I was with my kids so I didn’t particularly want to watch it with them. I’ll get around to it.[/size]

[size=2]You haven’t watched it? So how can you threaten to sue the BBC on the back of it?[/size]

[size=2]Oh, don’t worry, I know what was in it. I know all about the allegations they’re making.[/size]

[size=2]And you think it was a stitch-up job?[/size]

[size=2]It’s outrageous. I actually can’t believe that they went with the allegations they went with. We told them. We sent lawyers letters all week, warning them that these things aren’t true and warning them what would happen if they ran with these allegations. They’ve run with things that are totally, completely and utterly untrue. It just proves the case that they are a biased organisation, biased against Rangers. They’ve done it several times this season. They’re completely biased. They did it to Ally McCoist. Every time they show something on sectarianism it’s Rangers fans. One has to wonder if there’s institutionalised bias in there. It’s outrageous what they’ve done. Absolutely outrageous. To accuse me on national TV of criminality is an outrage. I’m suing and maybe the BBC are going to be paying the (HMRC) tax bill.[/size]

[size=2]Okay, this is raw stuff at the moment. But these things are always sorted out. You threaten to sue, there’s a rapprochement and everything gets resolved. Why is this one any different?[/size]

[size=2]I don’t see any way back for the BBC. No. They’re not going to apologise. As long as I’m here there will be no co-operation between Rangers and the BBC. They won’t get any interviews with players or management. As far as I’m concerned, even if somebody speaks to them off the record they’ll never work for Rangers again.[/size]

[size=2]How on earth can you enforce that?[/size]

[size=2]The BBC are completely, totally and utterly out. They’re not going to get away with it what they did. They’ll suffer the consequences.[/size]

[size=2]Let’s look at this closely. They said you were disqualified as a company director. Is that true?[/size]

[size=2]I’m not comfortable getting into the specific allegations.[/size]

[size=2]They had a government official – Robert Burns, head of investigations at the Insolvency Service – saying that you could, potentially, have faced a two-year jail sentence for your involvement in a company, Re-tex Plastic Technology while disqualified. Is that true?[/size]

[size=2]I’m not going to comment on specific allegations other than to say on the basis of what I’ve heard the Insolvency Service said last night, I’m looking into the possibility of suing them personally.[/size]

[size=2]Another law-suit?[/size]

[size=2]For what he [Burns] said, he deserves to be sued personally. Because it’s a lie. If he said what I’ve been told he said, it’s a lie. The question to be asked here is if I’m being accused of something then why didn’t they pursue it, why didn’t they do something about it? The reason is because it’s not true.[/size]

[size=2]They then tried to link you with a convicted fraudster, Kevin Sykes. What was your involvement with Sykes?[/size]

[size=2]I’m sure that most people in their past has met somebody – 12 years ago, 15 years ago – and then you move on and you forget about them. To bring it up now, to associate him with me is an outrage. I haven’t seen the guy in 12-13 years. What’s the relevance of that?[/size]

[size=2]This is a respected investigative journalist, though. Mark Daly is a good journalist. Why would he have it in for you? Why would the BBC have it in for you?[/size]

[size=2]There’s no question but that this was a hatchet job. Look at the contributors. Alastair Johnston and Paul Murray, who are no friends of mine. Other guys on companies I invested in who wanted more money and I wouldn’t give it to them. It’s not impartial. It was biased from the start. Typical BBC attitude. They’re arrogant.[/size]

[size=2]Did you hear that your old mate, Johnston, cried no surrender![/size]

[size=2]Yeah, I heard that. Alastair thinks he’s the fans’ hero. The funny thing is that he tells everybody that he’s never taken a penny out of Rangers, that he’s never wanted anything from the club, that he was put here for the good of the club and that he’s the biggest Rangers supporter and all sorts of shit. I haven’t heard from him since the takeover. But about a week or ten days ago he starts emailing me and says he’s owed 30 grand.[/size]

[size=2]For what?[/size]

[size=2]They were really nice emails to begin with. He was talking about his expenses and his flights to the States and Japan on Rangers business, first class tickets and all the rest of it, and reckoned he was due 30 grand in expenses. There was this series of emails and I was really surprised. So then he puts a deadline of last Friday on it and said if I didn’t pay it he was going to sue. There was an overhanging threat of a law suit if I didn’t pay him.[/size]

[size=2]Another law-suit? How many are we up to now?[/size]

[size=2]I’ve stopped counting. I said I’d look at the detail and get back to him, but I haven’t responded to his last email, which was Wednesday I think. He’s not due the money. These are guys who have never put anything into Rangers and have taken a lot out, even during the depths of the financial crisis at the club. They could have said we’ve done quite nicely out of this, we’ll walk away and wish the club well. People like [Donald] McIntyre outside the court the other day saying he wants the best for Rangers, meanwhile he’s putting a £300,000 arrestment on Rangers and taking us to court, even though he was there throughout all the financial problems. When Rangers made the Uefa Cup final [Martin Bain] got the same bonus as the players, £45,000 a man. Why would the chief executive be on the same bonus as the players? Anybody who wants money from Rangers I’m going to scrutinise it. Every detail, whether it’s deserved or not. If it’s deserved, we’ll settle and if it’s not we’ll fight it to the death.[/size]

[size=2]There is an air of mystery about you, though. Nobody really knows much about you – where you got your money from and how much you have.[/size]


[size=2]So where did you make your money and how much do you have?[/size]

[size=2]If I asked you how much money you have, you would be within your rights to tell me to f*** off, it’s none of my business. All that matters is that I’m delivering on what I said I would deliver on. Rangers are in a better place now than they have been in the last three or four years. That’s what’s important. As long as I deliver on what I said I would deliver on what difference does it make?[/size]

[size=2]What other businesses do you have, we know nothing of this?[/size]

[size=2]I’ve got more than 20 other businesses in the UK and across various parts of Europe and I’m involved in all sorts of things. I’m a prolific deal-maker, but the only one you get to hear about is Rangers. I’m doing deals constantly. This morning I’m working on a decent size deal with a fairly well-known business but it will never get any attention.[/size]

[size=2]Why not?[/size]

[size=2]Because I don’t want it to.[/size]

[size=2]Again, why not?[/size]

[size=2]Why should I? I’m stubborn.[/size]

[size=2]Give us the names of a few of your companies that you’re really proud of?[/size]

[size=2]No. Good effort but I’m not going to name the companies because that’ll create a level of scrutiny for them and I don’t want to have that. I just want them to get on with business. Look, I can’t complain about it because I put myself in the position. David Murray told me what it would be like. I’m fortunate to be in the position I’m in. You know my thoughts, I’m not a publicity hungry type of guy. This stuff doesn’t sit naturally with me. I’m only doing this now because of that BBC thing.[/size]

[size=2]Okay, let’s talk about the tax bill. You said not that long ago that you we were going to fight it if the outcome went against you, but you said the other night you might not. What are you thinking?[/size]

[size=2]I’m not going to box myself into a corner on this one. What I said to STV was that there has to be some finality sooner rather than later. I don’t see how we can live like this as a business with this thing hanging over us for another year or two years, it’s impossible. If we’re trying to sign long-term deals with sponsors or corporates it makes life more difficult.[/size]

[size=2]Fine. So talk us through what you will do in the worst case scenario. Rangers are hit with a massive debt bill. What happens next?[/size]

[size=2]There’s a solution to it either way. Either we win the case or we don’t win the case and if we don’t win the case I’ll still control the club and so the club will be there forever.[/size]

[size=2]But what happens if the bill is £49m?[/size]

[size=2]Clearly, an insolvency would mean the business would have to go through a formal restructuring.[/size]

[size=2]Insolvency? Restructuring?[/size]

[size=2]It’s hard to say at the moment because there are different ways to restructure a business. People talk about administration as one option and that might well be one of them.[/size]

[size=2]Putting the club into administration is an option?[/size]

[size=2]For sure.[/size]

[size=2]What would that entail? Are we talking here about the club re-forming as New Rangers FC and the tax bill is eliminated. It’s not that simple, right?[/size]

[size=2]It’s not as simple as that but that is one potential outcome. It’s not desirable, not something we want to do and I’m doing everything I can to avoid it.[/size]

[size=2]You wouldn’t think that the club going into administration would be a blight on its proud history?[/size]

[size=2]You can’t erase the club’s history. That stays.[/size]

[size=2]But it would be mortifying?[/size]

[size=2]Other than a regrettable event in our history I don’t think it would be as bad people think it might be. But that’s not what I want. It’s something I’d rather avoid, if at all possible.[/size]

[size=2]Have you regrets about the way you’ve handled the tax case, the secrecy surrounding it that has given way to endless speculation?[/size]

[size=2]Yeah, with hindsight I should have probably said more about this when I first came in but on the other hand we were battling to win the league at the time and I didn’t want to put negative issues out there. As soon as the league was over, I should have come out and said ‘Look, there’s a big job to be done here’. I should have got my message out a bit sooner.[/size]

[size=2]If you were a betting man, where would your money rest? Victory for Rangers or victory for HMRC?[/size]

[size=2]I’m not a tax expert so it’s a difficult one. Our legal advisers say we’re going to win but HMRC’s advisers say they’re going to win. I wouldn’t like to bet on it either way, to be honest.[/size]

[size=2]You seem to be constantly fighting people. The tax man, Bain, McIntyre, the BBC, various solicitors firms, all sorts of people. Levy & McRae took action over an unpaid bill of £35,000. Why is there so much hassle?[/size]

[size=2]Levy & McRae acted for Rangers previously and under Law Society rules they shouldn’t be acting against their client so when they represented Bain we complained about them to the Law Society and to be fair we were a bit bloody-minded when we said we weren’t going to pay them because they started acting for Bain against us. That was the reason we didn’t pay them. They took us to court and with hindsight it would have been easier just to pay them.[/size]

[size=2]I think people use the profile of Rangers to try and take us to court and think we’ll settle because we don’t want the bad publicity. For me, I’m bloody-minded. Why should I fall for that one? I’m getting more and more thick-skinned by the day.[/size]

[size=2]Is this the most hassle you’ve had in business?[/size]

[size=2]For sure. But this is what I signed up to. Nothing on this scale has happened to me before and nothing on this scale will happen to me again. Even if you owned one of the clubs in London I don’t think you’d get this level of intensity in the national press. I wouldn’t wish it on anybody. No football club owner in Scotland has had the hassle that I’ve had.[/size]

[size=2]Like you say, you buy Rangers and you accept the obsession that comes with it, right?[/size]


[size=2]So what about all your cash flow, then?[/size]

[size=2]The arrestments by Bain and McIntyre don’t help, but we’re fine.[/size]

[size=2]No issues about paying your bills?[/size]


[size=2]What about your transfer dealings? Lots of players signed but not a high net spend, not the £5m you said it would be?[/size]

[size=2]It’s a lot higher than people think. Our net spend is about £5.7m or thereabouts. That includes things that people forget about like agents fees and so on.[/size]

[size=2]You said you’d invest £5m a season for five seasons, roughly. That £5m was including agents fees and other costs?[/size]

[size=2]If you’re going to sign players then you have to include the cost associated with it, legal costs, agents costs, all sorts of costs. Of course you have to include the costs.[/size]

[size=2]People will always ask how could you think this is a sound venture?[/size]

[size=2]You can have a proper business model in football but it’s not easy, I’ll give you that. But I also think that Rangers are a huge club with a huge support base worldwide and with tremendous commercial potential that is untapped. Our costs are too high and will have to be reduced. Long-term, we can make this a successful business.[/size]

[size=2]The tax case could be Armageddon, though?[/size]

[size=2]I don’t think it’s Armageddon. Everybody knows that, in reality, Rangers are always going to be around. You might get idiots on bulletin boards saying that Rangers are going to disappear but that’s not going to happen.[/size]

[size=2]Finally, John Greig walked away during the week. He was a player you admired greatly. An icon. Was his departure a reflection on the way you run the club?[/size]

[size=2]It was unfortunate. John could have stepped down a different way. We could have shaken hands and wished him all the best, which I still want to do. Unfortunately, I heard it from a newspaper rather than from John. I thought we always got on well. He’s a legend and will always be welcome.[/size]

The funniest thing is the huns refusing to believe this guy is a conman, only here to make a quick buck, when it’s blatantly obvious and laid out in front of them!

if they were insolvent due to the tax bill & they reformed- HMRC & not the new Huns would own ibrox? could they sell it to someone before HMRC got their hans on it?

Just saw footage of the WBA and Villa game on Saturday and that cunt and ex hun Alan Hutton nearly scythed Shane Long in 2. Alex McLeish probably encouraged him to take out Shane. He is definately out of the playoffs now.This fills me with rage.2 utter despicable vile fucking cunts

Despite this threat of financial meltdown that has hung over the Ibrox outfit for a few years now, they still finish comfortably on top of the shit pile league. Says a lot about how inept their neighbours are.

St Mirren have their house in order mate

According to Facebook a new company registered in London called “Glasgow Rangers Football Club Limited”

What are the penalties were they to go to the wall?

9 point penalty for administration I believe.

Be gas if they still won the SPL after it though I suspect they will do well to avoid a firesale of their decent players in January.

Davis might come back to the Villa. Jelavic, McGregor will find clubs too. Not sure about the rest. Lafferty will probably get somewhere.

A firesale of players from an SPL team. Might as well just stick them on eBay.