Bluedell

I don't think that they do contradict each other. The second statement appears to come from some sort of summary but they probably feel unable to assess the reasonableness of it without seeing the detail that makes it up.

I'm not sure of the the technical ins and outs but can't think why a liquidation would be better for Wavetower than administration. It's 2 different issues. There's the case itself and there's the collection of the cash. If they win the case then that has implications for the similar EBTs. if tey are unable to collect most or all of the cash due to Rangers financial position, that has no impact on HMRC's dealings with the other EBT cases.

I agree with Frankie on the pace issue. That's the main reason I'd say no.

Bain and McIntyre's jobs may have been put at risk by the statement so you would think that there has to be some substance behind their concerns. However the statement seemed to concerntrate on the tax case in particular and perhaps Whyte hasn't seen fit to share all of his plans with the IBC.

And 2 PR men, which will hopefully be good for the club and the support.

I'm not an expert in administration but it could be that Whyte securing the debt is protecting the club. If HMRC are owed cash but the administrator believes that it will get paid a small amount after the preferred creditor has been paid then perhaps some sort of deal can be done and Whyte can buy back the club on a pre-pack basis after "waiving" the amount due to Wavetower. Not sure if it works like that, but it may be one way of dealing with the threat at minimal risk.

Welcome to the site, mate.

He would have certainly authorised it. However I wouldn't say selling a company whose accounts show net assets of �£70m for �£1 is getting away scot free.

I believe that HMRC lost its status of preferred creditor in 2003.

It's called a discussion. Are you upset that everyone doesn't agree with your point of view? You're allowed to put forward your views but don't expect everyone to meekly accept them and not to express their own opposing views. I disagree with a lot that SDM has done over the years but accept that he has also done good for the club (Enic cash, King cash, the �£60m he has invested, the JJB deal) and I'm happy to argue about them. Whether I'm a moderator or not doesn't make my views any more or less valid. Messageboards are meant for debating and they'd be awfully boring of everyone agreed on everything.

Feel free

Who has deemed discussion as un-Rangers like? When was that done?

Followed by an even poorer comeback. However we're taking it off topic and it would be better to leave it there.

Personally, I think that the fans deserve to know the level of debt of their club and how it is to be financed.

He has very few obligations but surely he wants to get the support on his side? The next set of accounts, both for Rangers and Wavetower should make interesting reading.

If Rangers lose the tax case then administration is a possibility, both under the old board and under CW, and probably under Paul Murray's solution. I'm sure Forlanssister is correct about the loan being secured. We don't have anough information to fully assess the whole Whyte deal. If everything is above board then there will be no reason why he can't come out and fully explain it all during the next month.

If you're accusing FS of not being a bluenose, you couldn't be further from the truth.

It's one way for him him to stop me raising (valid) questions about his takeover.

Is he looking for a new Financial Director?

I didn't realise it was in the rules I had to comment on the whole post. In the same manner why didn't you comment on my first paragraph? Pot and kettle sping to mind. Positive things? There was nothing in your post that I took as positive.

Feel free to put forward an opposing argument.

It's not "time after time". It was actually only twice. he stuck in �£10m at the same time as dave King, then put in �£50m following the overspend that he alone authorised, and I'd argue that he was morally obliged to do so, although credit to him for doing it. Actually it was Murray's approach of financing property with short term loans. Incredibly short-sighted. Credit to him for that, but by doing so, he escapes the potential of the tax liability so not entirely altruistic. It's easy to blame SDM because it's his fault. the other directors can have their say but the decisions are made by the person who controls 93% of the shares. I do agree that the 11-12 season would be bleak without CW and from what we know, it is definitely a short term gain. My concerns are longer term though and having been misled about spending and finance of the club in the past, it is only prudent to have concerns about someone who has so far failed to share what their dreams and visions are for the club, even though his 2 PR men sat in the row in front of him at Ibrox today. I hope my concerns are fruitless and wish CW all the best.

I disagree. SDM is responsible. It's unfair to say that the board have done nothing over the past 2 years. When SDM walked away, they were left with a mess and they have managed it as well as can be expected. They were quite right in issuing their statement yesterday and they would have been negligent if they hadn't done so. I still have concerns over the Whyte funding.

Wavetower are whatever that means.

There was never any suggestion that SDM had agreed to take on the tax case liability, other than AJ's misleading statement that MIH were "dealing" with it. It looks as if it has also been confirmed that the club will not be debt free. We now owe Wavetower, and goodness knows who they owe.