calscot

Amazing commercial revenue and one would think that we should be able to achieve half of that if you think about the number of supporters we have compared to Dortmund...

An analogy usually a simile - often starting, "it's like...". I think you mean a metaphor...

We should all get our WAGS to sign as well...

Didn't know you were in Bucks - I'm in MK...

Should go further - tax liabilities need a statute of lapsed time, companies should not be put out of business due to "suspecting" they have broken tax rules for years while submitting all the details in their tax returns. The threat of crippling back taxes with excessive penalties is in no way fair in a democratic society.

HMRC need to change the rules and move on - like they should have done a few years ago.

I think the last verdict shows that they will find it difficult to use our case as a precedent. It at least would mean that other clubs would find it within their interests to appeal and appeal again - is it really worth that level of investigation and litigation with no guarantee of a win - at taxpayers expense?

I'm not sure an appeal would be fair - they will still be zealous but who will defend the club with the same zeal? Even if we lost the appeal it doesn't change much, the fact is we thought we were acting within the law and so did two judges - how can you say we cheated?

Shouldn't he be lambasting HMRC for throwing away £30m that could have gone to schools and hospitals? And what about Celtic, they may have got caught and coughed up but they still did committed the same immoral act. What about the BBC? Lennon? Dermot Diamond? Has he himself NEVER done anything to reduce his tax liability? I'm pretty sure every club in the land has done some form of tax avoidance as most companies do. There is a point that perhaps we wen't a bit too far in our tax avoidance (as did Celtic, Arsenal etc) but it was within the rules and was the decision by those running the company that owned the club at the time. How can that be reflected onto the club, the fans and the team? And how is it relevant now? Celtic have been immoral for years and benefiting from it in their trophy cabinet. How about the immorality of postponing a game when you have injury problems due to some player who for a short time played a bit part of your club (and then play when a legend who was still working at the club died), and then making it worse by forcing Rangers to play a load of games at the end of the season - where was the morality there? Why isn't he on his soap box? Or how about the morality of the pressure on the refs? Or the morality of forcing clubs to kick the best club out of the league with the excuse of a crime they didn't commit? Or the morality of forcing an illegal punishment on a club as blackmail to letting it back into the lowest league? Or the morality of trying to steal trophies due to a difference of opinion about how loans should be registered even though accounts were submitted every year? Or the morality of withholding prize money and transfer fees? If he's all into morals, where is his diatribe for all these moral affronts?

I think it's more likely a CVA was his gameplan which would have allowed him to keep ownership of the club afterwards - or if the club had to be sold to fund the CVA then he'd get a couple of million for his shares.

Maybe he should have taken the liability on, knowing that administration and liquidation we possible get outs. The difference with Whyte is that Murray's investors would have lost their money rather than Ticketus - and he probably didn't want to be in charge while Rangers went though the mill as he would likely be blamed and vilified. However, with the tax case won, the investment wouldn't have been lost. If the club was liquidated due to HMRC winning then they could have done a Green and got their money back through an IPO. The only problem is that they could have severe competition to get the club back.

Will Spiers be pointing out the immorality of the SPL, Neil Lennon and Dermot Diamond?

I deliberately don't read the Herald, could you tell us what he said? (In fact I'm really disappointed that three of our enemies are in the top ten of NewsNow - or is that due to Tims reading them?)

He may not have gained the riches he hoped due to the reasons I've already explained, but I'm sure he syphoned off a few million of the Ticketus money as well as other scams.

I think it's obvious that Whyte wanted to keep Rangers running long enough for the BTC to be decided - but that was originally due a year ago and then put back to March - he didn't guess that it would take till now, and his strategy didn't stretch that far. I think we were always going to be in administration at some point due to Ticketus but he would have expected a CVA if we won the BTC. Like I said, that way he'd own the club, virtually debt free for £1 and then sell it on for at least £20m - a 2 billion percent profit in one year. He still probably expected a CVA if we lost the case and didn't bet on it being turned down. You can see where the pound signs flashed in front of his eyes.

At Miller's stock must be dropping especially after playing in Canada. I can't see him being offered a wage by another club that is much greater than Rangers will be able to offer - certainly none in Scotland.

I think Ticketus would have voted for the CVA as while it was a pittance compared to what they were owed, it would have been better than what they got under liquidation and they are a business, not a vindictive and incompetent government department. They could then sue for the loss with the companies that Whyte used as guarantors - although I doubt they'd have much joy.

Quite a bit of money went to Ticketus - at least £8m for the first tranche of payments during last season.. That created a big shortfall. Our wages were unsustainable without a good European run and so we were on course to make a loss as well due to the double exit and add in not too many cup games at Ibrox that could have brought in a million or three. Then there's the player purchases in the Summer which makes about an 18m shortfall that Whyte was not going to fund - nor anyone else.

Don't know about hate but the guy is obviously a mercenary with no loyalty to the club - to some that's not what they are looking for in a player.

Just have to say, There is NO OLD CLUB. There is an old company but there is only one club. Maybe you're reading the BBC website too much. The oldco will probably still be liquidated, Ticketus is a big creditor and there is still the unpaid tax from last season which is at least £14m.

If you want any editing feedback, near the end I think you mean "sight" instead of "site" about the British museum...

It's got to be said that the drip feeding of some correct information (which gave the leaks credibility) laced with false information and wrapped up in an disparaging package will have put off many buyers and investors as well as sponsors etc. We have definitely suffered losses which makes a court case viable but the problem is that all losses are due to the oldco and its creditors.

If he won't do it, surely the RFFF will? I'll happily donate again for that cause.

It has to be remembered that HMRC threatened to appeal and appeal again if they lost. That would have put the club in the mire for years to come and be unable to trade properly or compete - and then there was a chance we could lose and have say £150m to pay as the penalties increase. Whyte seemed to see the only way out as a CVA or liquidation - or the threat of those to persuade HMRC to deal. He then pursued that strategy and knew he'd have nothing to pay Ticketus - however the original payments to them meant we had no cash flow and so to keep the club going long enough for when we thought the tax case would be concluded he stopped paying tax. There is also the point that if you're going to be put into administration or liquidation for owing £75m of tax - why not make it £100m? There was nothing really for him to lose. The thing that made it all such a huge mess was the lateness of the verdict. If it had been earlier, HMRC would not have had such a huge claim and may have accepted a CVA which would put us virtually debt free with all our players but not relegated or given extra punishments. And Whyte would own a Rangers worth £30-40m for £1. That seems to me to have been his best case scenario for his strategy. If it had been earlier and we lost the case then liquidation would probably have followed and we'd be in the same position as now but our football enemies would be feeling totally justified.

It seems obvious to me that the whole thing wouldn't have happened if HMRC hadn't pursued an obvious lose-lose strategy. Whyte is guilty for what he did but it was all in an attempt to survive the HMRC suicide bomb. They are the number one guilty party, Whyte is just a side show in comparison. Besides, think about it, Whyte is just a single dodgy character who is out to swindle as much money as he can in his lifetime, HMRC are part of our government and should be an institution, that while they do a job we don't personally like, they should be a body that we can trust to do the right thing. Whyte is just a charlatan, but the acts of HMRC shake the foundations of our democracy. It's like the difference between being mugged by some reprobate and being set up and falsely imprisoned by a corrupt police force who have it in for you.