Calgacus

how long do companies need to keep copies of contracts of employment for anyway?

What wasn't made clear was whether Murray's £6 million was from the Club or from the Murray Group.I couldn't care less if the Murray group paid it, but if it came from Rangers then it is an absolute scandal. As far as I can see there was nothing new revealed about EBTs.

Every time someone mentions the investors I keep thinking of the scam in Mel Brooks film "The Producers"

He'll be ranting about UFO's next!

He can ask, but unless there is something in the SFA rules to cover it, then he won't be getting any answers. As I understand it, their rules only apply to officebearers ie directors, and not shareholders or other investors. If they did apply to shareholders, then a certain Republic of Ireland based multi millionaire would have a lot of questions to answer, given his frequent appearances in Irish Government reports on political corruption in the Republic.

Its interesting that Traynor says that the police were contacted last summer about Whyte and that concerns had been raised with a senior official at either the SFA or the SPL. The whole thrust of the panel's decision was that people at Rangers hadn't done enough to make public what was going on, yet here is evidence that they had. The panel's decision looks like an attempt to divert any blame away from the SFA and on to Rangers. The SFA never asked any questions even though there was a lot out in public, Bain's Court Case, the Daily Record's original Ticketus Story, the HMRC visits to Ibrox and the arrestment, the court actions by other creditors for payment of relatively small sums, the court action against Whyte's one of Whyte's other companies, the BBC Documentary, the warnings from the Independent Board Committee, the suspensions of Bain and McIntyre, and a lot of internet chatter, I'm sure I read somewhere (possibly in here) before Christmas that it was common knowledge that the Club hadn't paid its PAYE. Perhaps, people at Ibrox could have done more, but the SFA could have done more as well, and to lay all the blame at Rangers is unfair.

The really interesting bits are about the lead up to the take over, it undermines David Murray's clain that he was duped by Whyte. It also shows how much the sale was down to Lloyds TSB.

that makes grim reading, a number of people could have done a lot more, if not to prevent Whyte, but to reveal what he was up to. If they had the the punishment may have been less severe.

Never did like Cowans, they're as bad as eavesdroppers.

You can tell a lot about someone from the sources they quote

Although the CVA would extinguish the Club's liability to Ticketus, the guarantee would allow them to pursue Whyte for the shortfall. The point of a getting a guarantee from a third party is that the third party becomes liable for anything the main debtor fails to pay.

At this rate the Lawyers could end up making more money than the administrators!

I think that the "wee tax case" was some other type of tax device and didn't use EBTs

The creditors would presumably get a share of anything that is recovered from collier bristow and the stockbrokers.

and you have a problem with ending sectarianism?

to be fair to them I think it was a desperate attempt to cobble together something that might stop the club falling into Whyte's hands

oops pokemon

how on earth can anyone be bored baby sitting! (having just spent the last 2 hours listening to my youngest rattle on about Pomkemon)

the in introduction of this rule was announced long before the Rangers situation, and might possibly have been one of the factors that influenced Whyte's timing regarding putting the Company into administration.

St John's Toun or Saint Johnstoun

The point he seems to have missed in his 3rd last paragraph is that the ticketus money wasn't paid to Rangers. it was paid to Wavetower, so Wavetower was the party that was unjustly enriched

To answer the original point, the administrators can sell the assets and the business, but they can't sell the Limited Company - Whyte owns the majority of the shares, so unless someone can get these shares off him, then we are talking about a new company taking over the business and the existing limited company presumably going into liquidation. It is a scenario that brings its own problems with it.

"Whyte and others knew this was coming with the state our books were in, why couldn't they have just sold our high earners and get in some money along with getting them off the wage bill........." it was because liquidation was Whyte's plan all along

At least in the SFL we'd get to play at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon!

I don't know that the new UEFA rules will make that much of a difference - rich benefactors instead of putting funds directly into their clubs they could presumably start paying the same money for say a hospitality package or a special seat or numerous other pretexts, that would comply with the letter of the legislation.