calscot

A lot of that statement makes some sense although some is still very muddied. However, the alternatives from the press make very little sense at all unless Whyte is just brazenly stealing money from a much loved, very famous and highly scrutinised entity, endangering its very existence - and expecting to waltz away with the money, his business reputation, his liberty, and indeed his life intact. He sure looks like a liar and a thief but given the circumstances, I still can't see the motive nor the opportunity to get away with it... 'Tis very strange... I'm still waiting for the huge plot twist or anagnorisis...

Wonder what that was all about - would be more understandable if it was set up recently in light of events. Surely that must have cost a few hundred quid at least?

Not having a go but just wondering about this link: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/d82186668a10d7e4683ff8aace1b8f48/compdetails Which shows Celtic FC Limited as being formed in 2011: Company Details Name & Registered Office: CELTIC FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED 33 HOPEPARK DRIVE GLASGOW SCOTLAND G689FG Company No. SC410032 Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off Date of Incorporation: 26/10/2011 Country of Origin: United Kingdom Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC): None Supplied Accounting Reference Date: 31/10 Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED) Next Accounts Due: 26/07/2013 Last Return Made Up To: Next Return Due: 23/11/2012

I don't think there's a "blown out of the water" about it. Ally did fine when the club was stable and he had a decent number of decent players to make a decent team. He's shown he can't cope with utter turmoil and his best players removed from a wafer thin squad and other main players suffering a loss of form. All that says is that he's not some kind of managerial genius - there is nothing to suggest he is less than average under the circumstances. Management is a pretty complex animal in any case and there are plenty of highly respected managers who have failed under less than ideal circumstances - Kenny Dalgleish for one. A very small snapshot of your managerial record does not directly reflect your football knowledge. Ally was an incredibly successful number two as well as a player, and add pundit to that too. Does anyone on here actually have a football CV that betters his supposedly poor one? I'm not saying Ally is the manager to take Rangers forward - although under the circumstances I really couldn't make that judgement, but the man still deserves a modicum of respect from those who have not achieved the tiniest fraction of what he has. Ironically, he has shown far more glimpses of making it as a half decent manager than half the hardly played guys who leave Ibrox (to the chagrin of many of the support) have of making it as a decent Rangers player - McKay included.

Weren't Rangers recently criticised for playing on the deck? I'm sure I remember playing against a team with a dodgy keeper and the pundits were asking why were weren't testing him with high balls into the box all the time... The real point is that you need variety in your play otherwise it's a bit like playing 6-4-0... For example, if you ALWAYS play short serves at badminton then your opponent will come closer to pounce on any less than perfect. If you mix it up a bit with the odd long one, they can't do that and are always on their toes. Football is a three dimensional game with a full gamut of tactics - if you don't use it all then you're not going to get anywhere. Ally is no dunce when it comes to football and to me was one of the most enlightening pundits on the telly with regards to some of the technical stuff. To suggest he's stupid says more about the lack of knowledge in the detractor than our manager in my opinion.

I have respected you as a very knowledgeable poster but this is one of the poorest things you have written and really brings you down in my estimation. You know next to nothing about everything that has gone on and yet because you have jumped to your own conclusions, you start to get sanctimonious on others who don't 100% follow the same speed to judge. I doubt there is one person on here that thinks that Whyte has done nothing wrong, not one - and to me that shows you are highly flawed at drawing conclusions in the first place. None of us know the truth of what has happened as yet and there are many who are willing to wait for the facts before making a judgement. Sometimes it's seems obvious when someone has committed a wrong, but when it's too obvious and shows little regard for getting away with it you have to question what the motives are and whether there is something more to it. There is nothing wrong with showing some restraint from judging until all the facts are presented and in fact it's what being the judge and jury is all about...

I don't think he meant being in Europe, he meant being in the CL...

Mk Dons are in League One and their tickets are between 20 and 30 quid... Comfy padded seats though...

I think this is a weak attempt to sully the club further. The implication is that only dodgy businessmen with a penchant for avoiding tax would be interested in Rangers FC.

I'm saying there is enough Rangers support that while the original company, club or even god forbid the stadium might not be the same, the entity of Rangers FC will survive and prosper. Airdrie Utd is our worst case scenario - but factor in that Rangers are at least 20 times bigger.

The problem I have here is that the EBTs were considered legal at the time - and were done in full view of HMRC at the time. In my opinion, the way HMRC has done its business has not been moral and often isn't in many walks of life. I think companies need clearer guidence and warnings about tax avoidance when there is a chance it may RETROSPECTIVELY deemed not legal. In fact I think when things are judged retrospectively after a great deal of time then it should be dealt with leniently. Not only have HMRC not been morally lenient is appears they haven't even used brains for their leniency. A settlement for the actual tax avoided without penalty of twenty something million over say 10 years, not only would seem morally superior - it would probably have been agreed to and paid. Suddenly demanding 70M from a club who can't afford it for something that was considered fine 10 years ago just doesn't make moral sense to me and so if they get shafted I have no sympathy. To me it is not a real debt - if it was it should have been demanded at the time, not 10 years later with artificial and hugely inflated penalties. People should pay tax when it's due but this doesn't really fall into that category. I think the fault lies at the tax man for not contesting the loophole when it was being exploited. At best it seems like entrapment.

The weird thing is that it will NEVER happen - they are completely fantasising... The worst case scenario is an Airdrie United type situation where we buy a club and change its name and location... Even Airdrie were too big a club to disappear too easily... Alas Gretna wasn't big enough. Can I point out the real Rangers entity is not a company nor a building nor even a bunch of players. It's not even the fans at the time. As people, we change throughout the years and each and every molecule is replaced many times - but our soul and identity goes with us. As does Rangers - the essence of the club is an abstract entity that like Tinkerbell, only needs enough people to believe in it to survive through the ages. I lack the philosophical knowledge to explain this well known concept adequately but as long as but a hundred Rangers fans remain alive and true to the cause, the club will survive in some shape or form. With at least a few hundred thousand of us, we will be a major force for a long time to come - even if as some phoenix from the ashes.

There is a precedent where Airdie United paid out quite a bit to the former club's small creditors as a goodwill gesture.

I can't see turning up as an option for him at this time. It would only fan the flames.

I think the morality judgement should be reserved until it's established as to whether monies are never paid or whether they are just deferred. It may be immoral not to pay someone, but is it really immoral to pay someone late? With regards the tax, you also have to factor in how the tax man is preventing Rangers from trading properly and costing the club money on a weekly basis. Is what HMRC have been doing 100% morally correct? I really don't think so. If we win the tax case, what they will have done to us is far worse than anything Whyte has done and indeed they will have been the main cause of Whyte's actions in the first place. If it is indeed a fact that they plan to "appeal and appeal and appeal again" then they are definitely the root cause of those actions - they have forced Whyte into a corner. There is no black and white here.

I have no doubt that Rangers would be very supportive of Celtic if they were in the same circumstance. There was nothing like this that I could see, from any of us, when they almost went to the wall in '94.

The big tax case is probably the reason why no-one was interested. The only way out of it was to take the club into administration and no-one wanted to do that - especially as it seems to me that you'd have to invest over £20M and then lose control of the club and then possibly lose most of your money and end up a pariah. I still have a sneaky suspicion that Whyte is someone who's whole fortune is built on nefariously stretching and exploiting how business insolvency works, and seen an opportunity to do the dirty work and still make money out of it. I still can't believe he's only out to steal from wounded Rangers as it would be like daylight robbery in full view of the press and tax man while leaving incontrovertible evidence that the Keystone Cops could work out. Unless he's working on the bleeding edge of the law, I can't see how we would get away with it. He must have an ace in the hole somewhere. I feel we're watching one of those films where the protagonist has to do something counter intuitive and immensely complex to cleverly get out of a difficult situation and after a huge twist in the reveal, end up with a happy ending.

Yes, but the bit your missing is the question: is he a benevolent crook or a malevolent crook? It might conceivably be that a crook is thing we need best right now - if he's on our side as well as his own...

It seems to me if it's delayed we'll either have to delay coming out of administration or liquidate and go phoenix - in which case the tax bill would not belong to the new company.

I don't think it's that interesting as it seems obvious. You can't fully trust someone when you're clueless as to their motivations in what is pretty much an undercover job. However, you can fully distrust them... The poll is not an even one in that respect.

Besides, we only really need to finish second now... We don't need a very strong team for the rest of the season, just a better one than Motherwell.

I still feel the whole point was to put us into administration at this point to avoid the tax bill - or at least most of it.

Not even a little bit. They have no shame and that was totally proven four years ago with the O'Donnell/Burns/Japanese tour tactics. They are like that top to bottom - for example when the opposition put the ball out of play in Celtic's half because a Celtic player is down, instead of giving them the ball back, they throw to one of their own players who does the rugby tactic of kicking the ball to touch as far up in the opposition's half as they can and then proceed to press the ball. They also did this last year against Rangers and almost scored as a result. I mentioned to a Tim friend how he couldn't be happy if they scored from that situation as it's about as unsporting as you can get. He's usually a decent guy but in this instance he replied he'd love it if Celtic scored against us in this way...

I don't think we can exit administration until the big tax case resolves.

Thing is, we can do without tea, we can't function without decent players.