forlanssister

The article is merely a very damp squid.

Good bear is Sheriff Lindsay Wood.

Think they are IIRC, carry quite a high coupon too.

No, I mean because for all intents and purposes MIH is now merely an LBG subsidiary, if they were to convert their 165 million convertible preference shares then Murrays shareholding will be reduced circa 7% of MIH. That would surely mean MIH and ergo LBG would've benefited greatly from a positive outcome of the tax case but were unconvinced by the chances of obtaining one.

I assume the board would be in constant contact with their advisers. I would expect HMRC to be using equally eminent counsel too. If Murray and LBG were confident of a positive outcome then I very much doubt they would have countenanced accepting �£1 If Whyte is correct in his assumption then I'll gladly doff my cap to him.

If he is correct then he has played a blinder but his optimism is not universally shared within the boardroom.

Am I correct in understanding if the tax case goes against us and Wavetower decide they would like their cira �£18 million back that they would be unable to do so via an administration but could do so via a liquidation? Also I'm led to believe we are the test case for approximately 20,000 similar EBTs, if so then I very much doubt HMRC would be willing to affect an accommodation as they would be setting a precedent would they not? If they're half as effective working for Rangers as they have been for Whyte then I'd welcome them with open arms.

Can you not just put up a decent argument against any of the points I've stated? I'll state once more counteract my posts by putting up a contrary argument and if you can prove that I am "talking crap" then I'll happily concede to your superior knowledge, if that simple request is beyond your comprehension then perhaps the internet is not the place for you.

What are these facts that you speak of ? As I've stated before dissect my statements and respond, and if you can prove me wrong on any point then I'll happily concede. It seems to me that all you can do is imply that I'm a tim then run away like a coward.

Yes tis better you scurry of before you make an even bigger arse of yourself. Yes or no answers too difficult for you?

"There's none so blind as those who will not see" There will be nobody more glad than I if everything in the garden turns out to be rosy, but to think all is well because all of a sudden we're in debt to someone other than LBG is simply the act of a fool.

I'm typing this slowly in the forlorn hope you may actually understand it. Instead of owing LBG circa �£18 million for the term loan we now owe circa �£18 million to Wavetower. Rangers now owe circa �£18 million to Wavetower, Wavetower does not owe anything to LBG. You do understand that ? A simple yes or no will suffice. Wavetower will have secured the monies owed to them by Rangers. Do you understand that?, again a simple yes or no will suffice. In exchange for a consideration of �£1 from Wavetower, Murray, MIH and LBG have absolved themselves of any liabilities regarding Rangers whilst Rangers now have liabilities to Wavetower of circa �£18 million and probably (though admittedly not 100% definitely) to HMRC of circa �£32 million plus penalties (which can range from 0% to 100%). You do understand this don't you?, again a simple yes or no will suffice. If the tax tribunal find in favour of HMRC and we are landed with a bill of circa �£50 million and if HMRC are insistent of their right of payment in full then my understanding is that the only way for Wavetower to get their money back is to liquidate Rangers as they would be entitled to payment before HMRC. Now I may be wrong in my understanding of the ranking of entitlement of Wavetower over HMRC. (Bluedell is far more qualified than I and he's more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong). Now back to Whytes �£1 bet, do you understand that �£1 is all Wavetower is risking ?(all other monies being secured) again a simple yes or no will suffice. Can you see the massive upside to Wavetower of the �£1 bet if Rangers wins the tax case ? Again a simple yes or no will suffice. The downside to Wavetower if we lose the tax case is the grand total is �£1, do you understand that? again a simple yes or no will suffice.

Of course the tax man never opts to liquidate companies does he? Whyte will have secured Wavetowers "loan", he however won't have secured his �£1.

Rangers are now in debt to Wavetower instead of LBG, that's what's changed. Rangers still owe the money, probably on more onerous terms than previously. If you seriously believe that CW has somehow absolved RFC from debt, then there are some people in the East End of London that would like to sell you a bridge or two. Of course there was a Plan B. A plan that just happened to be better option for Rangers but a poorer option for Murray and LBG. Drop the "you're a tim shite". If we were to lose the tax case and are liquidated and RFC cease to exist then what has CW lost ? The grand total of �£1 that is all.

The one thing about Whyte so far that has been very impressive so far is the PR machine that he has used it has quite simply been a stunning lesson in spin over substance, they've even managed to convince some people that Whyte is investing �£52million quid in RFC rather than �£1. They just raised �£65million of new money on the markets last week doubt they'll be going bust any-time soon.

Feel free to dissect it and respond to it pointing out which parts are bullshit.

The liabilities RFC face today are the same as they faced yesterday however the same cannot be said for Murray, MIH and LBG. The damage done to RFC was done long before Paul Murray ever sat on the board. CW has not and will not clear RFC's debt, he may have removed any potential exposure for LBG and lifted a millstone from round Murrays neck but RFC are still fully exposed. If CW had walked away the Plan B would have been implemented, Plan B only ever came about because of the potentially fatal flaws in Plan A. CW's �£1 was nothing more than a bet that we would win the tax case, if we lose CW loses nothing as he will have secured his debt (most probably against Ibrox) and will be a preferred creditor, if we win then he got the bargain of the century.

A few minutes after it appeared last night, don't know if it made the print edition.

The 41 year-old, whose business career began in a blaze of publicity, has studiously avoided the limelight for over a decade now, which only makes his decision to pursue ownership of the Glasgow club all the more difficult to understand. Often described as a lifelong Rangers fan, there are those who can remember the Motherwell-born entrepreneur travelling to Hampden in a supportersâ�� bus 20 years ago to witness his hometown club defeat Dundee United 4-3 in the Scottish Cup final. A self-made businessman (he started an accountancy course but failed to complete it), even before leaving Kelvinside Academy Whyte had amassed profits of �£20,000 through gambling on the stock market from the age of 15 and he started his business career by buying a plant hire firm. In 1993, aged 23, he acquired security company Vital UK and built it into a conglomerate before it went into voluntary liquidation, with debts of over �£600,000, three years later. The tycoon appeared at the High Court in 1999, where his legal team admitted he owed �£3.5 million to a single creditor. Before his fortunes took a turn for the worse, Whyteâ��s personal fortune was rated at �£20m and, tellingly, among his luxuries was an executive box at Ibrox. With his empire seemingly collapsing, Mr Whyte relocated to Monte Carlo in 1999 while the government launched an investigation into his affairs and former employees pursued him through the courts for unpaid wages. He returned to Scotland in 2007 after re-inventing himself as a venture capitalist, buying the 15th-century Castle Grant, at Grantown-on-Spey, for �£720,000. One of his neighbours is Bob Dylan, who bought nearby Aultmore House several years earlier. Whyteâ��s business interests include a variety of complex offshore companies. He founded Liberty Capital, a group which claims to specialise in buying under-performing companies and transforming their fortunes before selling them on. However, quite how Mr Whyte has been able to persuade the Rangers directors that he has access to the funding required to effect a similar transformation for their club has yet to be explained. Many of the companies he has been associated with have either gone bust or are worth little. Consequently, the source, and extent, of Whyteâ��s wealth remains opaque. Whyte split with wife Kim, whom he had married in Naples, Florida, in 2000, last year.

Basically saying "Don't trust the c&*t!"

This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement...... Statement by the Independent Board of The Rangers Football Club plc 6 May 2011 Further to today's statement from Wavetower Limited ("the acquirer"), the Independent Board Committee of The Rangers Football Club plc ("the Club"), comprising Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain, John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre, (''IBC'') would like to make the following statement: In recent weeks the IBC has been engaged with the acquirer and has secured an enhanced financial commitment from Wavetower for future investment into the Club. The decision on the sale and purchase of the majority shareholding in the Club firmly and ultimately rests between Murray MHL Limited ("MHL") and Lloyds Banking Group ("LBG"). Although the IBC has no power to block the transaction, following its enquiries, the IBC and Wavetower have differing views on the future revenue generation and cash requirements of the Club and the IBC is concerned about a lack of clarity on how future cash requirements would be met, particularly any liability arising from the outstanding HMRC case. Wavetower is purchasing MHL's 85% shareholding in the Club for �£1 and the Club's indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower. This share transaction would ordinarily trigger a requirement on Wavetower under Rule 9 of The Takeover Code for a mandatory offer to be made to the other shareholders. Given this transaction structure and following discussions with the Takeover Panel, the IBC considers there to be no purpose in the acquirer making such an offer to acquire all other shareholdings at effectively nil value per share. Accordingly the IBC has agreed that the offer period for the Club will now end. In agreeing that no offer should be made to all shareholders the IBC has insisted that the acquirer issues a document to all shareholders setting out the full terms of the transaction, comprehensive details on the acquirer and the sources of its funding and giving firm commitments to agreed future investment in the Club. The IBC is committed to ensure that the transaction and future investment and funding proposals should be transparent to all teh shareholders and supporters of the Club

Does not exactly fill me with joy.

Absolutely none.

The "debt free" brigade just won't believe you, they think Mr Whyte is the second coming when he's just a very naughty boy!

Why do you think he was so keen to do the deal, he's quids in already.