Search the Community

BBC Scotland will not say sorry to Rangers owner Craig Whyte after being threatened with legal action over a documentary about his business career, we can reveal. Whyte - who accused the Beeb of "muckraking" - has offered to drop his damages action against them if they say sorry. He banned the BBC from Ibrox last month after they claimed he may have broken the law in previous business dealings. And Whyte ordered London solicitors Carter Ruck to sue. They wrote to the BBC offering them the chance to retract some of the allegations and apologise to avoid a damages claim. But BBC lawyers have written back standing by the documentary and refusing the offer. Senior sources last night said the Beeb will not be retracting the claims or making an apology. Yesterday a BBC Scotland spokesman said: "We stand by the programme." A spokesman for Whyte said: "This legal action against the BBC is not about money. "Mr Whyte refutes all allegations of criminality made by the BBC." As Carter Ruck are an English firm, they cannot appear in Scottish courts on behalf of Scottish clients. They have hired Glasgow media law firm Bannatyne Kirkwood France, on Whyte's behalf, to sue the corporation. Sunday Mail

A tax tribunal which could decide the immediate future of Rangers Football Club has resumed. STV can reveal the hearing, known as a First Tier Tribunal, reconvened on Monday between the club and HM Revenue and Customs. Rangers are challenging a bill for £35m in back taxes, as well as £14m in penalties, over their use of an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) to pay players between 2001 and 2010. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service has confirmed that the hearing has resumed. It is understood that five days, four this week and one next week, have been allocated for the latest hearing. Rangers have declined to comment on the hearing. Their owner, Craig Whyte, has previously conceded that administration could be an option for the club if they were unsuccessful. John Cairns, convenor of the taxation committee for the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, agreed that was a possibility. He said: â??If the club loses, probably the most likely scenario is going into administration to get rid of this enormous debt. â??By the sound of it thereâ??s a chance of HMRC pursuing this quite vigorously because we have a high profile tax payer here. â??Itâ??s the same way as they pursued Lester Piggott and Ken Dodd a few years ago, to make an example.â? HMRC also declined to comment on the proceedings specifically but warned keeping businesses afloat which do not pay taxes was not their concern. A spokeswoman told STV: "We are unable to discuss individual cases due to taxpayer confidentiality. "HMRC has an outstanding track record in supporting those who are experiencing genuine difficulty paying their tax debts, and does not initiate legal proceedings against any business lightly. "HMRC only initiates administration, winding up or bankruptcy action where it believes this is the best course of action to protect the interests of the Exchequer. "There is little HMRC can do for a business whose viability is dependent on not paying the UK taxes to which they are liable.

MINUTE OF MEETING WITH MR CRAIG WHYTE AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE RANGERS SUPPORTERS TRUST. IBROX STADIUM. WEDNESDAY 19TH OCTOBER 2011. SEDERUNT - Craig Whyte, Rangers FC Chairman; Jim Hannah, Rangers FC Liaison Officer. RST - Gordon Dinnie, Acting Chairman, Alison MacLeod, Treasurer; Simon Leslie, Board Member. Mark Dingwall, Board member. FAN REPRESENTATION - As fans are the major investors in RFC the Trust favours looking at mechanisms to give them a real say in the affairs of the club. Chairman is very open to such moves but stressed the club finances are very much subject to the result of the tax case. GERSAVE AND RANGERS CREDIT UNION - Gersave remains a vehicle for investing in the club - subject to the tax case result. The RST intimated that we have been discussing the formation of a Rangers Credit Union and would supply the club with finer details in due course to maximise the benefit to the support as a whole. The chairman was interested in these schemes and would be open to further discussions to the benefit of the support. BLUE ORDER AND UNION BEARS - The Chairman described himself as â??a big supporterâ? of both groups, described them as great for atmosphere and is keen to see their area expanded and to work to improve the atmosphere in all areas of the ground. He takes a personal interest in the groups and has directed staff to work with the groups to resolve any outstanding issues, subject to Health and Safety regulations. ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLUB - The Chairman is 100% committed to protecting the rights of small shareholders in the event of the club going into administration. He does not consider that insolvency is inevitable, but in any case it will be manageable. He stated â??as a Rangers fan it would be as uncomfortable and unpleasantâ? for him as for everyone else but he was confident we would see it through. There is no doubt the club would continue. INWARD INVESTMENT - The Chairman reiterated that he will underwrite the investment of £20m by 2016 - however, he is open to other investment from other major investors and the fans. RESIGNATIONS OF DIRECTORS - The Chairman stated he considered he got on well with both John Greig and John McClelland and he first heard of their resignations when they were reported in the media. He felt that he had not excluded them from decision-making. BBC PROGRAMME - The Chairman considered that allegations put to him so far by the BBC were unfounded and unfair. He is not aware of all of the content of the programme but after viewing he will respond accordingly. He views the BBC Investigates propgramme as part of a pattern of behaviour on behalf of the BBC towards Rangers FC and Rangers fans. Heâ??s astonished that the BBC would produce a programme largely based on internet chitchat and bloggers. MEDIA HANDLING - The Chairman spends more time than he would like defending the clubâ??s reputation but regards it as a very necessary part of his role as it has such a negative effect on the club. He engages with PR advisors, Mediahouse, regularly. Heâ??s very ready to defend both the club and fans from scurrilous attacks. FINANCE - The Chairman regards it as necessary to pursue a twin-track approach in the current climate with both cost cutting and income generation being the keys to financial health. He used the example of Manchester United operations base in London where they engage with major corporations to exploit commercial value. He is actively seeking to establish an office for Rangers in the city of London - he regards the club as a big one and thinks itâ??s time we started acting in a manner befitting one. He also believes Rangers has vast untapped potential. FREEZING OF CASH DUE TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - The Chairman conceded this makes life difficult with regard to cash-flow but it will not affect the clubâ??s ability to, for instance, make signings in the January window. THE TAX CASE - The Chairman expects the case to come to a head before Christmas but any outcome would still be subject to appeal. CLUB ACCOUNTS AND CLUB AGM - Chairman reports both on target. CULTURAL ISSUES - The Chairman regards engaging with the fans a priority. In the past many opportunities lost or misfired because of the clubâ??s internal culture being unwelcoming to fans initiatives on both cultural issues and improving the atmosphere inside the ground. He is taking a personal interest in these areas. He stated he would be delighted to consider ideas from fans. LEARNING FROM OTHER CLUBS - The Chairman hopes to visit Hamburg and see for himself how a large fan-owned club like HSV operates. He also believe that the membership system of Portuguese clubs could be worth exploring and which parts of them might be applicable to Scotland. The meeting closed with the Chairman emphasising his commitment to continuing dialogue with fans organsations.

For those of you that are unaware, the Vanguard Bears have arranged a protest for this Saturday against alleged biased broadcasting from the BBC and, in particular, the Scottish branch of the corporation (more details below). With this protest in mind, it has been interesting to note the response from the RFC supporting community to the proposed action. Obviously many back it but there are also plenty bears who remain cynical about such a move. After all, is this merely to show solidarity with an owner who has perhaps been less than forthcoming about his past (or indeed his intentions) and do we really have credible grievances with a national broadcaster bound by a variety of guidelines? Have we become as bad as the Celtic support - basing our outlook on paranoia rather than fact? I'd like to be clear from the outset. I don't believe there is a media-wide conspiracy to negatively portray Rangers (or our fans) more than anyone else. Fans of every club can point to poor reporting and this occurs to all clubs across every platform. However, with regard to BBC Scotland the situation is less clear so it's certainly worth examining why our fans are so frustrated. First of all, we have to remember this isn't a new problem just because Craig Whyte was accused of criminality by a recent BBC investigative programme. Therefore, inferences that Whyte is attempting to create a flawed siege mentality or deflect attention from him are off the mark. In actual fact, the organisers of this protest have held similar rallies over the last two years. Moreover, they also met with the BBC Scotland hierarchy to discuss these concerns. Yet the less than balanced coverage continues. Let's have a quick look at the last 6-12months and ask just a few interesting questions of the BBC Scotland coverage: 1. Why are 'neutral' sectarianism stories presented outside Ibrox (this happened again this very morning)? 2. Why were stories about letter bombs mailed to the Celtic manager presented outside Ibrox? 3. Why was our manager made to look like a fool with regard to editing news video about sectarianism? 4. Why, in the same report, did the organisation show our fans singing alleged sectarian songs while showing Celtic fans carrying anti-racism banners? 5. Why do the organisation choose to cover some sectarianism stories and not others? 6. Why do they have 'karaoke' lyrics for offensive RFC songs but not for other clubs? 7. Why are radio/TV debates often not presented in a balanced fashion (see Graham Spiers radio documentary)? 8. Why have Rangers had three examples of editorial problems this season alone? 9. Why have certain BBC employees mocked the Ibrox Disaster on social networking sites? Once again, as I present these rather damning examples of questionable editorial/production standards; some of us will suggest others can point to their own similar problems. Fair enough, as I've already conceded, other clubs (and supports) will be able to show negative/unfair coverage in the media. But, and it's a big but, such critics of Saturday's protest (and the RFC ban) struggle to do so when we specifically talk about the BBC. Indeed, I've asked doubting journalists and Celtic supporting friends to show me some similar examples of such strange productions/editorial standards. They can't. No matter though - even if they could point to similar problems that still raises the question of why BBC Scotland are failing to fulfil their own obligations to the millions of us who pay their television licence fee? If the Rangers support really are being unreasonable or paranoid, then the above questions should be easy to answer. Nevertheless, I obviously don't expect everyone to agree with the protest or buy into some BBC conspiracy but if Stuart Cosgrove can admit to problems within the media when it comes to Rangers, his opinion is worth discussing. Yes, he may only be the presenter of a sometimes funny BBC radio programme on Scottish football but, yes he's also Head of Programmes at Channel 4 and a former director of British Telecom. I've also had some personal dealings with Cosgrove and while he's no friend of Rangers, he's an expert on a variety of relevant issues. To conclude, I'm strongly of the opinion most footballing conspiracies are exactly that - unsubstantiated and anecdotal-only rumours about a perceived bias. For the most part, the people who spread these tall-tales usually can't authenticate them with genuine evidence of malpractice. And, often the evidence that does exist, points us in the opposite direction. However, when it comes to the coverage of Rangers related matters by BBC Scotland, I think there is a case to answer and I think the questions in this article are worth exploring. To that end, I'm happy that our club have taken a strong line with the organisation and also, in principle, back any fan protest of the BBC. I'd urge you all to carefully consider the situation and make up your own mind. If you disagree with the action then that is your right and I respect that. If you agree - I'll see you on Saturday at 12.30pm outside Pacific Quay. Protest details (via link to Vanguard Bears website) available below. Please read and respect the attached protest guidelines. http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

The article headline says it all. Scotzine

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/277397-rangers-fc-taken-to-court-by-financial-services-company-over-commercial-debt/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter A financial services company is taking Rangers FC to court to recover a debt, STV News can reveal. Capita Trustee Services is pursuing the Ibrox club over a "commercial debt recovery matter". A hearing in the civil case is due to take place at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Monday. The amount involved, or the specifics of what the debt was run up for with the branch of Capita Group Plc, have not been revealed at this stage. Capita Groupâ??s lawyer Liam Entwistle said: "It is a commercial debt recovery matter and I canâ??t comment any further than that." The pursuing company, which has bases in England, Ireland and mainland Europe provides financial services for both the public and private sector. Rangers told STV News on Wednesday that they did not have anyone available to comment on the hearing. In September Rangers were taken to the Court of Session by law firm Levy & McRae over an unpaid legal bill. The club paid the lawyers £35,000 last month following the court action, during which counsel for Levy & McRae said there "is a real concern about solvency" at Rangers. Former board members Donald McIntyre and Martin Bain have also taken the club to court to freeze a total of £780,000 of Rangersâ?? assets ahead of damages claims. It was also revealed in a separate court hearing that HM Revenue and Customs has also previously frozen £2.3m, while the club also face a potential tax liability of £49m which is under appeal. In his first TV interview following his takeover of the club in May, Rangers owner Craig Whyte said the club are "doing all we can to avoid" administration. He also revealed that should Rangers win its £49m tax case, he would write off the £18m debt owed to him by the club

Since the turn of the century, seven Scottish clubs have entered administration. With Rangers new owner Craig Whyte having admitted that he is working to avoid taking the Ibrox club down the same road, the spectre of insolvency still hangs over the national game. The business implications of calling in the administrators are countless and can threaten the existence of a company, or provide it with a road to recovery. The sporting implications also have to be considered, and with clubs answerable to as many as four different governing bodies for different competitions, can be wide reaching. We've put together a layman's guide to the rules and regulations regarding administration from the authorities concerned and answered some of the key questions often posed. How many points will an SPL club be deducted? The simple answer is 10 points. The only way a club can be deducted more than 10 points is if it goes into administration twice in the same season. When will they lose the points? If the "insolvency event" occurs during the season, the points are docked straight away. If it happens in the close season, the club starts the next season on minus 10 points. Can a club appeal a points deduction? Only if it can prove it did not go into administration. What happens if administration lasts over more than one season? If a club begins a season in administration, they will begin on minus 10 points. What happens if a club goes into administration twice in one season? Ten points are docked each time a club goes into administration, unless the events are linked. It is up to the SPL board to decide, this can be appealed. Will a club still be able to sign players? No. The only exception is if a team requires an emergency goalkeeper or if a club is looking to replace a player who has left the club. This means no permanent transfer and no loan signings. Clubs can still sell players. The SPL board has the final say. How many points will a First, Second or Third Division (SFL) club lose? The SFL do not have a set figure. The amount docked from clubs is decided by the board on a case-to-case basis. The SFL are also likely to impose a registration embargo. There are no fixed punishments and the SFL can set any conditions it chooses. Can an SFL team be thrown out of the league mid-season? No. Gretna and Livingston were relegated to the Third Division for being in administration but this can only happen in the close season. What can the Scottish FA do to clubs? The Scottish FA's Judicial Panel has the power to suspend or terminate the membership of any club which goes into administration. This has never happened. Alternatively, the SFA can instead choose to â??censure, fine, sanction and/or penalise the member in such manner as it considers appropriateâ?. This has nothing to do with points deductions. The SFA has never exercised this power. Another option available to the SFA is to exclude a club from the Scottish Cup. This is a new provision which first appeared in the organisationâ??s articles of association in the 2011/12 season. Can UEFA do anything to Scottish clubs in administration? If a club is playing in Europe, it needs a UEFA club licence. If a club goes into administration but has already been given permission to play, it will not lose its licence for the season. Would a club get a new licence when in administration? It is unlikely. The club would have to prove it owes no money to other clubs, to its employees, and to HM Revenue and Customs. Additionally, the club would also have to prove to the SFA it is likely to survive until the end of the season in which the licence applies to. Club licenses are valid for one season and are granted at the start of each season. What happens when a club wants to exit administration? A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is drafted for a club to try and reach an agreement with its creditors. Clubs must agree with those it owes money to over how much to pay back, and over what period of time. Everyone who is owed money is then invited to vote on the proposal. A 'yes' vote is required from creditors up to 75% of the value of the overall debt. For example, if total debt is £10 million, the company must receive the backing from creditors to the tune of £7.5 million. How long does it take before the club is out of administration? If a CVA is approved, creditors have a period of 28 days to register their opposition to the decision. If there is no opposition, the club exits administration and continues in its current form, paying back its creditors over the agreed period of time. What if a club fails to reach an agreement? A club may try again to reach a satisfactory agreement with its creditors. But, if is unable to agree a deal, the company will be dissolved and the club will cease to exist. There is an alternative for football clubs. As was the case in England with Leeds United, the insolvent company can create a "phoenix" club and attempt to transfer every part of the club to a new business, leaving behind the debt. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/277010-what-happens-when-a-football-club-goes-into-administration/ Administration has been a key concern for Scottish football clubs in recent years with seven clubs having gone through insolvency. In part one of our analysis, we looked at cases when a club goes into administration and emerges having resolved its debts. However, in rare cases, a club can go into administration and be reborn as a "phoenix" company. This has most notably happened at Leeds United in 2007. So what is a "phoenix" company? A company that is set up to replace the old football club's parent company but that wants to run the club and keep the team in competition. Can they just take over everything without the team being relegated or having to start in the Third Division? They can, but they have to get approval from all the major bodies in the game. There are licences, shares and memberships that have to be moved over to the new company and each governing body has to make a decision. For Scottish top flight clubs, two bodies have to give consent. The Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football Association have to rule on the new application. A place in the League Cup, run by the Scottish Football League, is automatic if the club is entered into the SPL or the SFL. How does the "phoenix" club keep its Scottish Premier League place? The SPL is jointly owned by all of the top-flight clubs, who hold an equal share in the business. The share is held by the administrator of the old, dissolved company but can be transferred to the â??phoenixâ? club. The SPL board has to approve the transfer. The SPL board can put conditions in place before they give their approval. That can mean they impose a points deduction or any other terms they think are appropriate. The conditions for entry are set by the SPL board, and not the representatives from the remaining 11 member clubs. The board consists of Ralph Topping (SPL chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). Topping has the casting vote in the event of a split decision. With the SPL rules bearing a broad similarity to the regulations of the Football League in England, a situation they dealt with can give a hint to how things may be handled in Scotland. Has it been done before? Yes. Leeds United went into administration they failed to reach a CVA in 2007. A â??phoenixâ? company, Leeds United 2007, was created and an application was made to transfer their share and membership of the English Football League. The Football League accepted the application but said that the new company, closely linked to the previous dissolved club, couldn't start without some terms being imposed, to keep the spirit of the rules. The â??phoenixâ? company was allowed to take its place in the competition but in that specific case the board only granted the transfer on the condition Leeds started on minus 15 points. There's no guarantee that the Scottish Premier League would act in the same way as their counterparts in England but the similarities between the regulations mean that the precedent may be used as a guide. So will my team be deducted 15 points or more? It should be stressed that the figure of 15 points imposed by the Football League was discretionary and was a one-off. Reports that the SPL would dock 15 points, 25 points or more are speculation. The SPL could impose any conditions, or none at all, if they allowed a share to be transferred. Does the same apply to Scottish Football League clubs? The SFLâ??s Constitution and Rules (Rule 13) give them the same powers over membership that the SPLâ??s regulations detail for their competition. If a new company is created, the League would make the decision on whether to grant a transfer of membership, imposing any terms and conditions as it sees fit. And what about the SFA, do they have to grant permission? The SFA also exercise their authority on the transfer of membership and forbids any transfer of membership without its permission. The governing body makes it clear in their Articles of Association (14.1) that when a transfer is requested, a review is undertaken by the board. The board has complete discretion to grant or reject an application for transfer but also retains the right to impose any conditions or terms on the â??phoenixâ? club. Do the SFA decide on whether the club gets into Europe, provided they qualify? No, UEFA decide that. They issue a club licence every year to sides who make the Europa League or Champions League. Clubs need to be granted a licence to take part in European competition and applications are made on a season by season basis. As stated earlier, if a club enters administration during the season then the licence is not immediately withdrawn so participation in the Europa League or Champions League can continue. If a â??phoenixâ? club is created though, entry into European competition the following season would be affected. Transferring a membership is forbidden. UEFA regulations state that a club must have been a member for three consecutive years in order to be eligible for a license. Any â??phoenixâ? club would be considered as a new entity and would begin a three year wait from its inception before being eligible to play in Europe. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/

MEDALS won by Rangers stars for winning the league have been seized under a court order. The badges, worth almost £20,000, were grabbed by agents acting for the club's former finance director Donald McIntyre. He recently won a legal bid to freeze £300,000 of the Gers' assets as part of a breach of contract case. Agents for McIntyre had targeted possible revenue from the Scottish Premier League owed to the club for television rights. No TV funds are due at present but they uncovered the title medals in a box at the SPL's offices. McIntyre was unaware of the move. He is understood to have been horrified players were being denied their gongs for their third Premier League title in a row. He has since ordered his team to "unfreeze" the medals. A source said: "This court case has nothing to do with the players. It is down to a dispute with the owners." McIntyre won his case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh this month when Lord Hodge ruled in his favour. He resigned as a director after treating his contract as having been repudiated. The same judge ordered the ring-fencing of £480,000 over a similar case brought by Rangers' former chief executive Martin Bain. The court actions come after the club's ownership was taken over from Sir David Murray by businessman Craig Whyte. Lord Hodge ruled in the arrestment proceedings brought by Mr Bain that there was "a real and substantial risk" of insolvency at Rangers following the major tax case the club faces. Bain has raised a £1.3million claim for damages against Rangers over his contract. Hm Revenue and Customs have had around £2.3million frozen in a tax dispute and the club also faces a disputed tax bill for up to £49million, which is under appeal. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2011/10/31/former-rangers-director-donald-mcintyre-horrified-after-court-order-results-in-seizure-of-league-medals-86908-23527104/

It's not easy being a prophet in the internet age. Obviously, in terms of getting your message out, there are advantages. You can quickly build up a faithful following, and with each disciple comes the potential for word to spread further. Twitter, Facebook (FB), blogs and other social media are the stuff of dreams for your modern day David Koresh. However, with this quick and easy access to rumour and gossip comes a major downside. It's easy to verify whether you are talking rubbish and when your miracles don't come to pass you are open to fast and widespread ridicule. With this in mind, the trick to being a prophet these days is to brainwash your followers to such a degree that even evidence of you getting it consistently and totally wrong is not enough to shake their faith. They will instead condemn the media who have failed to report your prophecy. It must have come true, right? "It's a conspiracy of silence" they will cry. In this respect Philip McGillivan has performed admirably. He's managed to get 99% of his prophecies wrong but still has a faithful and increasingly large following amongst the more eccentric in the Celtic support. These poor unfortunates will cling to anything in the face of their team faltering so badly in the title race. His prophecies are in the very narrow, and some would say unlikely, area of Rangers Football Club. It seems odd that a self confessed supporter of Irish Republicanism, the IRA, Sinn Fein and Celtic would be the recipient of information about Rangers but there we have it. God (and Philip's mind) moves in mysterious ways. Philip, we are told, has a hotline to the legal minds involved in Rangers ongoing struggle with the tax man. These legal minds are "staunch Rangers" men and yet have chosen Philip to disseminate the confidential and highly damaging information which he claims to possess. Now Philip, some of you may recall, was the mastermind behind the "Fakeover" campaign on Twitter and FB. The Craig Whyte takeover was all a sham. It was never going to happen. Craig Whyte was a front and a distraction invented by David Murray. All of this, of course, turned out to be total nonsense. Undeterred however, Philip just moved on to his next prophecy, putting the mistake down to an unreliable 'source'. Who knows, perhaps this voice in his head has now been banished, never to return. Suddenly, Philip had a new 'source' to which he gave credence with the news that this "staunch Rangers" man had actually told him that the "Fakeover" information was incorrect. If only he had listened... So it was with confidence that Philip and his band of brainwashed minions moved on to the next day in the 'Philipian' calendar. The 27/28th of October (it never pays to be too specific when making things up). This, we were told, was going to be a "momentous day in the history of Rangers Football Club". The inference being that the momentous nature of the day was not going to be positive for the club. In fact as the date drew nearer we were informed with increasing certainty, and not a little gloating, that this would be the day that Rangers went out of business for good. I believe the phrase "Game Over" was overused. Well Philip - Aberdeen, Celtic and the SPL league table would disagree. Philip to his credit does not give up. Even at 10pm on the night of the 28th we were told that Craig Whyte was holding a crisis meeting at Ibrox at which his 'source' was present. Rangers had "ceased to trade" he told us. Ibrox seemed like an odd venue for this meeting. Presumably somewhere more cloak and dagger would have been appropriate, had the meeting actually taken place, but this sent Philip's minions on blog sites and Twitter into a frenzy. The "huns" were out of business. Praise be to Philip. Well it turned out to be pish again. This prompted even Graham Spiers, no friend of Rangers and a serial apologist for any unpleasant behaviour at Celtic Park, to label Philip as journalism's "ultimate chancer". Personally I thought this was quite generous since Philip isn't really a journalist at all but Graham did then undermine his point somewhat by making a prophecy of his own - that Rangers would in fact be out of business within 14 days. It's difficult to resist the allure and attention of the prophet's life apparently. Now it seems increasingly likely that Rangers are going to face some form of administration unless they win the tax case or come to some mutually acceptable arrangement with HMRC. This will no doubt be met with cries of "told you so" from Philip and his minions. However, let us not forget that Craig Whyte himself has already acknowledged that administration is a likely outcome if the tax case cannot be resolved in our favour. It's hardly breaking news. Presumably guessing that every week is going to be the week that it happens is now enough for Philip's disciples. If, or when, he eventually get's it right he'll be hailed as a Celtic hero. The man who brought the "huns" to their knees. Well that's not really the truth but truth doesn't play a large part in the minds of these people. If Rangers emerge from this whole affair unscathed then something along these lines will happen. It will be declared a disgrace by Philip. Some shadowy, 'establishment' organisation will have taken matters into it's own hands and will be blamed for rescuing the club. Indeed this conspiracy theory is already being prepared and has been given some major consideration - just in case he's got it wrong again you understand. Disciples have been urged to contact Celtic (and any other SPL clubs they can pretend to be fans of) to ensure that they do not give any support to the idea that a "New Rangers" should be allowed to continue in the SPL. This of course ignores the financial realities of life in the SPL without either of the Old Firm, but reality, like truth, is not the currency in which Philip deals. If it does come to pass that somehow Philip has got it totally wrong again, then his disciples can be assured of one thing. Philip will strive to expose any Rangers related miscarriage of justice - if only his disciples can keep his website alive a bit longer with all their kind donations......

Rangers could face 25-point deduction if tax case forces Ibrox club into administration Oct 28 2011 Hugh Keevins RANGERS could be hammered with a total deduction of 25 points if they are forced into administration. And should the Ibrox side have to start again under a new name it is possible all of those points would come off before the end of this season. That would leave Craig Whyte's club with a points disadvantage which would make the winning of a fourth, successive SPL title a virtual impossibility. However, Record Sport understands Rangers would fight tooth and nail against any move to impose more than the statutory 10-point penalty. An extra penalty will become a real danger if Whyte is forced to take the club into administration and the taxman is able to block a creditors agreement to take them out of it again. Rangers are one of 12 clubs with one share in the equally-owned business that is the SPL. If they are taken into administration that share is immediately suspended and Rangers will automatically be deducted 10 league points. A Creditors Voluntary Agreement (CVA) will then be offered to anyone owed money by Rangers. If 75 per cent of the shareholders and the same percentage of creditors accept a fraction of what they're owed the club can come out of administration and carry on with no further penalty. But if HMRC managed to put a block on the deal, as happened with Leeds in 2007, the Ibrox club, formed in 1872, would cease to be and assets would be transferred to a new company. Financial analysts last night said the taxman is allowed to object to CVAs if owed more than 25 per cent of a business' total debt. If Rangers lose the tax case into the Employee Benefits scheme they could be facing a tax bill of £40m plus. Clubs who can't exit administration by a CVA must hand over their assets to a new entity and after shares are transferred to a new company agreement has to be reached with the SPL over a return to the top flight. Under the terms of the transfer, a further penalty has to be imposed by the SPL and they're empowered to deduct another 15 points. But it is understood if Rangers are taken into administration before the outcome of the tax case has been completed they could escape the extra penalty. Such a move would leave the club with a CVA and no one to contest it since Whyte would be the main creditor and only 10 points would be deducted. Daily RHetard http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/RULES%20EFFECTIVE%2018%20APRIL%202011%20%28CLEAN%29.pdf A6.8 Where a Club takes, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event that Club shall be deducted 10 points. Where the Insolvency Event occurs during the Season, the points deduction shall apply immediately. Where the Insolvency Event occurs during the Close Season the points deduction shall apply in respect of the immediately following Season, such that the Club starts that immediately following Season on minus 10points.

Ibrox club face UEFA ban if HMRC liability forces them to start again as new company, finds Andrew Smith RANGERS face the prospect of three years without European football if forced to start a new company because of the HMRC tax case. The licence required to contest UEFA competitions can only be obtained by clubs that have been members of their national association for three years. If Rangers enter administration then fail to strike a deal with their creditors, the prospect of starting up again as a new company becomes a realistic possibility, but one UEFA is alert to. â??If a club sets up a new company simply to avoid paying its debts or obligations then they would almost certainly fail the three-year rule,â? a spokesperson for UEFA told Scotland On Sunday. â??This is to ensure clubs do not simply create a â??newcoâ?? and leave the previous entity in charge of dealing with debts.â? Rangers owner Craig Whyte, below, admitted last week that the Ibrox club could go into administration if they lost their ongoing tax tribunal with HMRC over the use of Employment Benefit Trusts and were landed with a £49 million tax bill. One possible option in that scenario, he conceded, would be to form a â??New Rangersâ?, with the assets, but none of the debts, transferred from the old Rangers FC. Financial fair play is a key plank of Michel Platiniâ??s UEFA administration and the strict licensing criteria were applied in the summer in the case of the Romanian club Timisoara. They finished second in their top league but were denied entry to the Champions League and demoted to the second tier of their domestic set-up because they failed to meet the licensing criteria. Following a failed appeal by Timisoara to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, UEFA made the following statement: â??Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by â??cleaning upâ?? their balance sheet while offloading debts â?? thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a clubâ??s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association and consequently three years must pass before a club can apply again for a UEFA licence. In other words, the three-year rule is designed basically to avoid circumvention of the club licensing system.â? It appears difficult to see how Whyte could avoid administration if Rangersâ?? tax case goes the way of HMRC. In these circumstances, to exit administration as the same entity they went into it, Rangers would need to obtain a Creditors Voluntary Agreement â?? wherein creditors accept a pence-in-the-pound fraction of the sums owed to them. Insolvent companies need to have agreement that covers 75 per cent of their debt. HMRC has a policy of not voting for CVAs. If HMRC wins the tax case with Rangers, it will be owed more than two-thirds of the Ibrox clubâ??s debt. Rangers, then, would have to form a new company that would have to apply for membership of the Scottish Premier League. On entering administration, the club would be hit with the automatic ten-point penalty. If Rangers cannot exit administration via a CVA any further punishment would be at the discretion of the SPL board, whose role it would also be to decide on what basis Rangers would be allowed to transfer their SPL share to a new company. The six-man SPL board comprises Ralph Topping (chairman), Neil Doncaster (chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). If it were to come to a vote for Rangersâ?? re-admission, it could mean Celticâ??s Riley deciding on the fate of his clubâ??s arch-rivals. But the reality is that SPL clubs are likely to allow a reconstituted Rangers back into the fold because without them the championship and its television and sponsorship deals would be devalued, with serious financial implications for the member clubs. Like the very bank that allowed the Ibrox club to rack up huge debts across the past decade, in terms of Scottish football, Rangers are simply too big to be allowed to fail. http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/rangers_run_risk_of_three_year_euro_exile_if_they_lose_tax_case_1_1938625

KYLE LAFFERTY has told Rangers boss Ally McCoist: I'm yours to keep. McCoist made it clear last week he is anxious to secure the striker on an extended contract. Lafferty is keen to stay and he said: "I saw what the manager said about me staying here and it means a lot. He's shown a lot of faith in me since taking over from Walter Smith and I'm doing everything I can to repay him. "There haven't been any talks over a new contract, but hopefully there will be soon and we can sort something out quickly. "I don't see why I can't finish my career here. It would be brilliant to play long enough for Rangers to get a testimonial." Lafferty praised McCoist, No2 Kenny McDowall and coach Ian Durrant for the way they have followed legend Smith, who left Gers last summer. He said: "Ally, Kenny and Ian have been fantastic. It's a happy place to be and all of the boys are desperate to do well for them. "Our team spirit is brilliant." Despite the financial uncertainty over Gers owner Craig Whyte, it's clear McCoist is anxious to seal a new deal for a player who is a key figure in his plans. Lafferty, who has four goals this term and hit 16 last season, added: "Things couldn't be going better for me. "I'm playing where I want to for Rangers, scoring goals and playing regularly. "It's brilliant playing alongside the likes of Nikica Jelavic and Stevie Naismith in attack. It's all I've ever wanted in football. "I've won three league titles and now we're pushing strongly for a fourth. "I've supported this club since I was a boy. I'm living the dream." Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3899118/Lafferty-Deal-me-in-Rangers.html#ixzz1c3vC9Q3J

Published on Monday 24 October 2011 00:11 HEARTS maintained a media blackout after losing 2-0 at home to Rangers yesterday, refusing to allow manager Paulo Sergio or any player to speak at the post-match press conference â?? while Rangers continued with their policy of non-co-operation with the BBC, who agreed not to attend the press conference. Hearts introduced their ban late last week as part of their dispute with the Scottish Football Association over referee Iain Brines and his chalking-off of a goal in their League Cup defeat by Ayr United. The SFAâ??s Judicial Panel is to investigate remarks made by Sergio about Brines at a press conference this month. Hearts argue that Brines gave one explanation to Sergio after the match about his reasons for booking Eggert Jonsson rather than awarding the Icelander a goal, then another explanation subsequently. The Tynecastle club have written to the governing body asking them how the referee could be allowed to offer two conflicting accounts, and Sergio said he was â??unhappyâ? that Brines should officiate in a game involving Hearts while the matter remained unresolved. A statement on the Hearts website suggested that, by then contacting the SFA to inquire about the case, â??elements of the mediaâ? were complicit in the decision to hold a Judicial Panel hearing. It claimed the ban on dealings with the media, in place at least until the hearing on 3 November, was part of the clubâ??s â??duty of careâ? to its employees. â??The club feels it is entirely wrong for Paulo Sergio to be potentially sanctioned given the circumstances,â? the statement said. â??For this reason, in addition to defending the managerâ??s position, the club will also suspend all general media activity.â? Rangersâ?? row with the BBC concerns the documentary about owner Craig Whyte broadcast by the company on Thursday. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/media_kept_at_bay_by_hearts_and_rangers_1_1926574

PEOPLE used to call Walter Smith defensive. But compared to yer man Craig Whyte, the old silver fox was Jimmy Calderwood going 2-4-4-1. With his goalie up front as the one. There's an old saying that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide. And it's run round my head again and again this week in regards to the new Rangers owner. Why IS he so secretive? Why DOES he bristle quite so angrily over any kind of criticism? I mean, he's done one truly impressive thing since taking over at Ibrox and that was to turn up at the first Old Firm game of the season alongside a blonde with a cleavage like Kenny McDowall jumping to head a Mitre. Yet here we are, more than a month on, and her name STILL hasn't come out. And in this day and age of celebrity tittle-tattle, that takes some doing. So if this is how closely he wants to keep his socialising to his chest, what chance is there of him letting his guard down when it comes to his hush-hush business affairs? Some men in his position would have dared the Beeb to come ahead with this week's documentary then gone to war if and when anything iffy was broadcast. Yet Whyte had the wagons in a circle before the apaches even appeared over the hill. He got his retaliation in first by banning Auntie in advance â?? a naïve piece of knee-jerkery, because the first thing his actions did was make far more people far more aware of the show than they might have been otherwise. Plus, it was a clear sign that he's not half as big a player as he wants us to think he is. Put the tackities into a Murray or a Lawwell or the like and they'll cut you out of their gang, spin a story to the opposition as their idea of punishment and make sure you're as unwelcome on their turf as humanly possible. But they take it, because they're strong enough to take it. Because they know that you're only one guy with a laptop while they're running a gigantic institution that's taken blows for 100 years and is still standing. Whyte, though, seems so brittle he makes Celtic's central defence look like Baresi and Maldini. He's actually very like Romanov in the way he deals with the outside world, the Lithuanian's insecurities highlighted once again by a media blackout in the wake of his manager criticising a referee; a blackout that comes by pure coincidence at a time when players are speaking out about unpaid wages. If Romanov thinks people can't see through stunts like this then it's a miracle that he ever made himself into one of his country's most powerful tycoons. And if Whyte thinks shutting out a national broadcaster will stop people asking questions about his ability to bankroll Rangers, he's even more like Tim Nice-But-Dim than he appears. Anyone who's been in debt knows nothing gets better till you stop hiding the final demands and start facing up to your problems. It seems for all the world like Whyte's actions this week are those of a man in denial about the weight of the worries he's taken on. If that's not the case, why is it that RANGERS are refusing to deal with the Beeb and not just the man himself? After all, apart from the fact that their name was in the title of the documentary, there was barely a word of criticism about the club. It was all about Whyte. Yet he felt the need to throw stones at his attackers from behind the red brick of the main stand. As for that criticism itself? Well, I'd love to go through it here with a fine-toothed comb, because some of it was serious stuff indeed. But, true to form, before the opening titles had run, Whyte's lawyers were issuing dire warnings of what they would do should any allegations be repeated in print. So I'll ask again: What's he scared of? If, as he says, it's all a pack of lies, why not face it down and tell us WHY it's a pack of lies; because just saying it is isn't enough. And let me say this. If there's one journalist out there in whom I'd put 100 per cent faith, it's Mark Daly, the man who fronted this investigation. I've known him since he was a kid on the local paper in Clydebank and his track record is there for all to see. He's infiltrated Greater Manchester Police to weed out racist officers, got to the bottom of the Royal Bank of Scotland's collapse and probed the Stephen Lawrence murder. He's a top-drawer, old-school digger who doesn't hang his theories on "insiders" and "sources". The spine of his documentary was an interview with Robert Burns, head of the UK Insolvency Service, the organisation dealing with every company that goes down the pan. It would be hard to imagine Mr Burns going on camera and on the record if he wasn't sure of what he was on about. Yet Whyte calls the documentary and its makers biased, despite it being stated on camera that they asked him more than once to give his side of the story. As he took the decision to refuse, maybe his definition of biased is different to the dictionary's. All in all, he's an odd one, is Craig Whyte. You take a Duncan Bannatyne or an Alan Sugar and they can't wait to tell the world how they made their squillions. Along the way, that means the world finding out stuff they'd probably rather it didn't. But in the end, they shrug and move on, because they know that the good stuff on the CV far outweighs it. You'd think that Whyte would be the same, that if he was big enough to run Rangers, he'd also be big enough to deal with the odd black mark he may have against him in the past. But then, that's the biggest unanswered question of all. Whether he IS big enough. Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3888799/Why-do-you-feel-the-need-to-stay-in-shadows.html#ixzz1beY4wsf2

CRAIG Whyte has intensified his battle with the BBC by stating that any member of the club who speaks to the broadcaster, even in an off-the-record basis, â??will never work for Rangers againâ?. Incensed by what he calls an â??institutionalised biasâ? against his club within the walls of Pacific Quay, Whyte re-iterates his intention to sue the broadcaster, adding: â??Maybe the BBC are going to be paying the [HMRC] tax bill.â? In a wide-ranging interview, Whyte expresses thunderous views on the BBC and, as he sees it, the motives behind their documentary Rangers: The Inside Story, aired on Thursday evening. Whyte says that not only he is suing the BBC but that he is also considering taking legal action against one of the contributors in the programme. Robert Burns, head of investigations at the governmentâ??s Insolvency Service, suggested that Whyte could have faced a two-year jail sentence for his involvement with a firm called Re-tex Plastic Technology in a period when he was disqualified from being a director. Whyte says he hasnâ??t actually seen the BBCâ??s investigation but is au fait with the allegations it makes, Burnsâ??s suggestion of criminality being the most serious. â??On the basis of what Iâ??ve heard the Insolvency Service said last night Iâ??m looking into the possibility of suing them personally. For what he [burns] said, he deserves to be sued personally. Because itâ??s a lie.â? The Rangers owner also states that his bitter foe and former chairman at Ibrox, Alastair Johnston, has been e-mailing him in the last ten days looking for £30,000 in expenses from when he was still in the chair at Ibrox. Whyte says the communication was friendly at first, but then last midweek it turned nasty when Johnston threatened to sue if the monies were not paid. â??There was this series of e-mails and I was really surprised,â? says Whyte. â??So then he puts a deadline of last Friday on it and said if I didnâ??t pay it he was going to sue. There was an overhanging threat of a law suit if I didnâ??t pay him.â? During the HMRC tax bill segment of the interview, Whyte concedes that he made an error by being so secretive for so long in relation to what he intends to do in the event of a worst-case scenario. â??With hindsight, I should have probably said more about this when I first came in but on the other hand we were battling to win the league at the time and I didnâ??t want to put negative issues out there. As soon as the league was over, I should have come out and said â??Look, thereâ??s a big job to be done hereâ??. I should have got my message out a bit sooner.â? Administration, said Whyte, was very much an option in the case of a mammoth tax bill from HMRC. It is, he stresses, something that he is attempting to avoid but he argues that it might not be the nightmare that some have predicted. â??Other than a regrettable event in our history I donâ??t think it would be as bad as people think it might be. â??But thatâ??s not what I want. Itâ??s something Iâ??d rather avoid, if at all possible.â? Meanwhile, Rangers manager Ally McCoist would not be drawn on any of the controversies that are swirling around his ears at present. â??Iâ??m not going to talk about any television programmes or anything like that â?? all I am going to say is that I spoke to Craig Whyte on Friday morning, as I always do, and we are both in total agreement that the most important thing is Sundayâ??s game at Tynecastle. â??We had a chat about the team, the players and the squad â?? as we always do â?? and we are both of the opinion, which we both feel is the right one, that at this moment in time the fans deserve to know that we are totally focused on the game at Hearts.â? http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/craig_whyte_vows_to_sack_anyone_at_rangers_who_talks_to_bbc_1_1924986

RANGERS are set to offer Kyle Lafferty a new deal. Officials from the Ibrox club will sit down with the Irishmanâ??s representatives soon in a bid to get the striker to extend his stay beyond next season. The Gers are desperate to sort something out with Lafferty well in advance of him running down his existing contract. â??Iâ??m really keen to see him extend his deal,â? said manager Ally McCoist. â??And Iâ??m hopeful we can do that. â??Itâ??s important we get talks underway and with him having said he would like to stay I would like us to sit down with his people and look at it all. I donâ??t want to lose him.â? McCoist has been a long-time supporter of his previously wayward star but has been delighted at the 24-year-oldâ??s growing maturity and influence on the team. ì Iâ??m really keen to see him extend his deal î Rangers boss Ally McCoist â??I know Kyleâ??s had both fans and critics in the past and he is what he is but Iâ??ve seen a steady improvement and thereâ??s a lot more to come,â? added McCoist. â??He has a very good goalscoring record here. â??And I think he will get better still. There are plenty more goals and good games to come from Laff and I want them to be here.â? The strikerâ??s contract doesnâ??t run out until 2013 but thereâ??s no way McCoist or Rangers will hang about till then to sort out his future. The Gersâ?? manager will look to owner Craig Whyte to get a new deal done and dusted soon. Whyte, though, has bigger fish to fry right now after another fraught week in charge at Ibrox. Court cases, the tax problem and television programmes have dominated the Ibrox clubâ??s agenda over the last few days. And although it is becoming increasingly difficult for McCoist to keep other issues at armsâ?? length and away from the football side of things he insisted: â??We have to keep that separate to everything else. â??We go to Tynecastle this weekend to play Hearts and if weâ??re not focused weâ??ll get our fingers burned.â? Whyte, meanwhile, insists itâ??s â??business as usualâ? and has vowed not to let anything distract McCoist and his players from going for four titles in a row. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/279116/Rangers-line-up-new-Kyle-Lafferty-contract?

Published on Sunday 23 October 2011 00:12 In the wake of the BBCâ??s documentary about him, and his extraordinary response in yesterdayâ??s The Scotsman, what have we learned about the Rangers chairman? IMAGINE for a second if Sir David Murray had listened when Alastair â??No Surrenderâ? Johnston had asked him to put the brakes on the deal to sell Rangers to Craig Whyte. Imagine if Murray withdrew from the negotiations and kept hold of the club himself, allowing Whyte to walk away and resume the life of privacy he so obviously desires. What then? Johnston wanted the Whyte deal blown out of the water. And yet, if he is to be believed, the kiboshing of the deal would have meant that Lloyds Banking Group would have instantly withdrawn Rangersâ?? line of credit, thereby tightening ever further the financial strait-jacket the club had been wearing for two years. The other night, in the BBC documentary, Rangers: The Inside Story, Johnston spoke about a phone call he received from a representative of Lloyds who, Johnston alleges but Lloyds denies, threatened a withdrawal of the credit line if the chairman and his fellow members on the Rangers independent board committee were seen to block the takeover process with Whyte. Regardless, Johnston and chums did all they could to block the sale to Whyte, but failed. They were doomed to failure, but imagine if they had succeeded. If Johnstonâ??s recollection of the phone call from Lloyds is accurate, Rangers might have been dynamited there and then. No credit line, no funds to buy players, no funds to offer players new contracts, a possible exodus of the best players with all the proceeds going to their bank to whom they would have still owed £18 million. The sale of Allan McGregor, Steven Whittaker, Steven Davis, Steven Naismith and Nikica Jelavic might have broken the back of it. Maybe. Of course, there still wouldnâ??t be a shilling to give to the tax man, be it for the smaller bill, in the region of £4m, or the howitzer relating to the Employment Benefit Trusts which, depending on the outcome of the case, could come in at a cataclysmic £49m. That is a possible â?? you might say probable â?? repercussion of Whyte being told that he was far too enigmatic for the independent boardâ??s liking. Murray did the deal because heâ??d no time for Johnstonâ??s vague protestations and his astounding willingness to halt the negotiations so that the board could give due consideration to a counter proposal from fellow director, Paul Murray, the detail of which would not have filled the back of a box of matches. Murray torched the idea of a delay and did the deal with Whyte because he had to. Heâ??d had enough. He didnâ??t have the money to invest any more. And he could see this possible calamity with HMRC coming at him like a runaway train. He didnâ??t want to be the one to put Rangers into administration â?? or worse. Somebody else could do it, if they had to. He didnâ??t want that on his legacy. Of course it will, if it happens. All the successes, all the good times, all the hubris will look altogether different if Whyte feels that he has no other option but to place Rangers into administration in the wake of a mammoth tax bill. Itâ??s by no means certain that the HMRC case will go against the club but theyâ??re certainly mobilising the troops in readiness for it. Murrayâ??s legacy would be dirt at that point. He off-loaded the club for a quid to a guy he knew little about, a guy whose first, second and third instincts in business are to reveal as little as possible about where he came from, where heâ??s been, whatâ??s he done and what he plans to do next. The air of mystery has resulted in speculation and investigation. Thatâ??s only natural. Whyte has brought some of this on himself â?? all the gossip online, all the doubtful words about his wealth, or lack of, all the allegations that heâ??s a chancer with ulterior motives. By revealing nothing, he opened up a vacuum that was always going to be filled, either by truth or by fiction or a combination of the two. In yesterdayâ??s Scotsman, Whyte was quizzed about all manner of things. The response to that interview has been instructive. Those who already believed in him now believe in him even more and those who never believed seem to have had their prejudices confirmed. In Whyte, people are seeing what they want to see. On one hand, he is a crusader against a biased BBC, a defender of Rangersâ?? reputation. On the other, heâ??s paranoid and attempting to intimidate the organisation with threats of legal action. When he refuses to name even one other company that he is involved in â?? he says he doesnâ??t want the publicity â?? his supporters say, â??Good, give â??em nothingâ? and his detractors say â??Ah, whatâ??s he got to hide this time?â? There is no doubting that the allegations in the BBC programme â?? that for a period of seven years he was disqualified from being a company director â?? are damaging, but the connection the BBC then made to alleged criminality was far from nailed down. It is on that basis that Whyte has engaged the heavyweight legal firm, Carter Ruck, to represent him in a legal suit against the broadcaster. Given all that he has said about his outrage at the BBC and his promises to take them all the way to the courts, Whyte cannot back down and hope to save face. From talking to him at length on Friday, he sounded like a man who was sure of his ground. Only the courts can satisfactorily decide on Whyte versus the BBC. Somebodyâ??s reputation is going to be set ablaze, though. A ban here and a law suit there, Whyte is, by his own admission, bloody-minded and stubborn. Many will say he is a lot more than that, naive and daft to be picking some of the fights he has picked and dense to buy Rangers in the first place, but there is no doubting his focus, no doubting his ruthlessness either. From day one, administration was an option in his mind in the event of the tax bill coming in at an eye-watering level. He denied it was way back when and he says he regrets not laying his cards on the table a bit earlier. Heâ??s open to flak on that front. To hear him talk, not quite matter-of-factly about administration but certainly without any emotion of what it might mean to the fabric and history of the club, was fascinating. It would be a horrendous episode in the clubâ??s story, a mortifying chapter, a stick they would be beaten with for years to come by those across the city of Glasgow. Whyte says that, should the case go against the club, heâ??d rather not go into administration, but he wouldnâ??t shed any tears if he thought that was the best thing to do. â??Other than a regrettable event in our history I donâ??t think it would be as bad as people think it might be,â? he said in The Scotsman. Itâ??s a dispassionate way of looking at it. Take the emotion and the sentiment out and apply some hard business savvy to the situation. In fairness to Whyte, any bill due to HMRC was not accumulated on his watch. This is a Murray legacy, a hangover from the previous regime. Whyte is there to sort it out, not apologise for it. All the financial challenges are ones he inherited. He knew all about them and says he has a plan to deal with them and woe betide anybody who gets in his way. The truth is that for all the conclusions that have been drawn about him â?? good and bad â?? itâ??s still too early to make any hard and fast calls on Whyteâ??s controversial regime. How events at Ibrox unfolded: 26 Aug 2009: Alistair Johnston is named as Rangers chairman after David Murray announces he is to step down. 6 Mar 2010: Murray confirms that he is considering his shareholding in the club after speculation regarding a possible takeover. 8 Mar: Rangers confirm that Murray is in talks with interested buyers. Nov: Whyte tells the Stock Exchange that he is considering making an offer for Murrayâ??s share of the club. Whyte holds initial talks with Murray International Holdings and registers an interest with the Takeover Panel, suggesting that his takeover would be complete by January 2011. Dec: A deal is agreed in principle between Whyte and Murray International Holdings for an 85 per cent stake in the club. 31 Mar 2011: Whyte meets the Rangers board to discuss his plans for the club. 19 Apr: Johnston claims that the board are yet to see any proof of Whyteâ??s proposed £25 million investment in the club over the next five years. 6 May: Details of an offer from Whyte for 85 per cent of Rangersâ?? shares is received by the Takeover Panel. The deal is accepted. 24 May: Chairman Johnston and director Paul Murray leave the club. 24 June: Suspended chief exectutive Martin Bain resigns from the club. 17 Oct: Club legend John Greig and former chairman John McClelland resign as non-executive directors and claim that they had been â??excluded from participating in corporate governance at the clubâ? since Whyteâ??s takeover. 18 Oct: Ahead of a documentary on the takeover saga, Rangers â??withdraw all co-operationâ? with the BBC after â??repeated difficultiesâ? with the broadcaster. Former director Donald McIntyre wins a plea to have £300,000 of the clubâ??s assets frozen as part of his case against the club. 20 Oct: BBC Scotland Investigates: Rangers â?? The Inside Story is aired, detailing Whyteâ??s previous business history. It is received with anger by Whyte who says he will take legal action against the broadcaster. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/tom_english_craig_whyte_in_focus_1_1925881

Rangers owner Craig Whyte has instructed his lawyers to begin legal proceedings against the BBC over allegations made against him in a documentary aired on Thursday night. The programme, BBC Scotland Investigates: Rangers The Inside Story, explored Whyte's business dealings before he bought the Scottish champions. The Scots tycoon took over Sir David Murray's shareholding in the club in May. A spokesman for Whyte said on Thursday night: "Craig Whyte strenuously refutes these unfounded and defamatory allegations and has instructed his lawyers, Carter Ruck, to commence immediate legal proceedings against the BBC. "Any repetition of these false accusations will also be met with legal action." Responding to the statement, a BBC Scotland spokesman said: "We stand by the investigation which was produced according to our rigorous editorial standards on fairness, accuracy and impartiality. "As the programme BBC Scotland Investigates: Rangers The Inside Story makes clear, Craig Whyte took the opportunity to respond to questions which were put to him during the course of the production." Earlier this week, Rangers withdrew co-operation with the BBC, with the Clydesdale Bank Premier League club describing the programme as "little more than a prejudiced muckraking exercise". However, the BBC strongly rejected claims of bias against the club and insisted the content of the programme was accurate and in the public interest. Speaking in an interview with STV earlier this evening, before the BBC documentary aired, Whyte defended his business record. He said: "I'm sure the programme that's been made will no doubt make various allegations and it's maybe not going to be flattering about me but I've got nothing to be ashamed of. "Ultimately, my track record speaks for itself. "I'm here, I'm the owner of Rangers, I'm the chairman of Rangers and I've done a lot more successful deals than deals that haven't worked out. I think that ultimately speaks for itself." Meanwhile, Whyte insists he is doing everything in his power to prevent the club from going into administration. Rangers are involved in two separate disputes with HM Revenue and Customs, relating to payments before Whyte's takeover. The larger of those cases could leave Rangers facing an estimated tax bill of £49million. Whyte has always maintained he is confident of winning the case but did address the issue of administration in the interview with STV. He said: "It's certainly not something we want to see happen and we are actively doing all we can to avoid it. "There is no chance of Rangers going out of business, no chance whatsoever." If Rangers do succeed with the dispute, Whyte has vowed to write off the club's £18million debt, which is currently on the books of his holding company. He said: "It's not going to be converted to equity which would dilute the other shareholders of Rangers. "We've got 26,000 shareholders who are very important to us, they are all fans of the club, and I want to make sure they are not diluted in any way. "The debt is effectively going to be written off. "I own a fantastic asset and a business that, once it has been restructured, I think is going to be very valuable so it's certainly not an act of charity. I see it as a sound business decision." Asked about plans to appeal if Rangers lose the tax case, Whyte said: "That's a decision that we can make at the time. "What I will say is that I think it would be impossible for any business to operate with that level of scrutiny, with that tax debt hanging over it and tribunals going on for potentially months and years to come. "I think it's better for everybody, better for Rangers and everybody involved at Rangers, that a conclusion is reached as quickly as possible." Whyte acknowledges that the Ibrox club face a difficult chapter but is adamant he is the right man to steer Rangers through tough times. He said: "There were many times when I could have walked away from it but I decided to persevere. "Somebody had to do this, somebody had to take up the challenge and I think I can do that. "There are days when there are challenges and it's tough but it's a privilege to be in this position, a privilege to own Rangers and be chairman of Rangers. "There is a big job to do here and somebody has to sort it out and I'm the guy to do that."

Rangers 'offered financial incentivesâ?? in case against Martin Bain http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/275656-rangers-offered-financial-incentives-in-case-against-martin-bain/

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/interview_craig_whyte_owner_of_rangers_who_has_come_out_fighting_against_tv_allegations_1_1925040

One of Rangers' highest profile fans said allegations about new club owner Craig Whyte carried in a BBC Scotland documentary were "quite disturbing". John MacMillan, general secretary of the Rangers Supporters Association, said Mr Whyte was "duty bound" to make a statement to fans on the programme. He said former owner Sir David Murray should address claims that Lloyds Bank forced through the Whyte deal. Mr Whyte has instructed legal action over the documentary. Speaking to the BBC Scotland news website, Mr MacMillan said: "We have to recognise that, at this point, these are allegations and if they are proven to be false then Craig Whyte will have recourse through the courts. "If the allegations are genuine, however, then we have a very worrying situation indeed." 'Very disturbed' Mr MacMillan described as "disturbing" the contribution from Robert Burns, the head of investigation and enforcement at the UK government Insolvency Service. Continue reading the main story â??Start Quote These things have to be answered and Sir David Murray should come out and make a statementâ? John MacMillan Rangers Supporters Association Mr Burns said his agency took the view that a company it had looked into was "being controlled, or certainly had the involvement of an individual (Mr Whyte) who was disqualified" from acting as a director. Asked if Mr Whyte should make a statement addressing these allegations, Mr MacMillan said: "Without a shadow of a doubt". "I think for clarification Craig Whyte is duty-bound to come out and make a statement to Rangers supporters," he said. Mr MacMillan said he was "very disturbed" by allegations from former chairman Alistair Johnston that Lloyds Bank had threatened to cut Rangers' credit line if Craig Whyte's takeover of the club did not go ahead. He said this concern extended to Mr Johnston's assertion that Sir David Murray sold the club to Mr Whyte against his advice. Mr MacMillan said: "I don't know Alistair Johnston but he came over to me as a very honest guy. "These things have to be answered and Sir David Murray should come out and make a statement." The programme, Rangers: The Inside Story, was shown on Thursday night. A spokesman for Mr Whyte said he "strenuously refutes" the "unfounded and defamatory allegations" aired in the programme and had instructed his lawyers to "commence immediate legal proceedings against the BBC". A spokesman for BBC Scotland said the corporation stood by the investigation "which was produced according to our rigorous editorial standards on fairness, accuracy and impartiality". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15402557

The ownership of Rangers by Craig Whyte is entering a crucial phase as the tax tribunal approaches The key passage in the story of Craig Whyte and Rangers will happen in the not too distant future. That much is certain, after yet another week in which the Ibrox club found themselves courting front as well as back pages of newspapers. The occasionally warped situation where football fans have more of an interest in directors and balance sheets than full-backs and strikers has one positive offshoot. That is, scrutiny of those purchasing clubs should limit the potential for ruinous scenarios. Notwithstanding the fact boardroom change is inevitable following most company buyouts â?? let alone hostile ones such as this â?? the departures from Rangers directorships of John Greig and John McClelland were notable. Both made it clear they felt hampered and frustrated by Whyte's management. Greig is the former player perhaps most symbolic of the club. McClelland remains a respected figure in Scottish business circles. Both were part of an old regime at Rangers that expressed concern about Whyte's takeover in May; now, the old guard has been all but eliminated. Two of that group, Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre, have between them successfully frozen £780,000 of Rangers' assets as they pursue breach-of-contract cases. These are increasingly bitter battles, with Whyte firing spoken bullets towards the duo who, the owner believes, were complicit in Rangers' previous financial mess. In riposte, former Rangers board members will point to a £40m borrowing at the end of June 2009. By the time Whyte purchased Rangers two years later, he did so by buying out a bank debt of £18m. In that 24-month spell, Rangers won four out of six domestic trophies. Bain was the chief executive and McIntyre the finance director who collaborated with the Lloyds Banking Group on a business plan. The potentially significant impact of Employee Benefit Trust payments came to light during this period, but there has never been any doubt about the origin of these schemes in relation to Rangers: via the Murray International firm, effectively the football club's parent company, several years earlier. The former Rangers management team would also dispute the widely held notion that Whyte's due diligence uncovered a separate tax liability the club continue to dispute. That came about, it is instead argued, because of a precedent ruling that allowed Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to "revisit" Rangers. A day after the exits of Greig and McClelland, Whyte reopened his war with the BBC by withdrawing all club co-operation with the broadcaster. Central to this move was a documentary about the Rangers owner's business history, screened on Thursday evening, which has since triggered legal action by Whyte. For all the arguments about the public-relations merits of such a stance, one thing is clear: a sizeable chunk of the Rangers support has no problem with Whyte taking on the BBC. They regard this as a fightback against perceived reporting injustices. The blunt reality is that a vocal element of fans care little about the past of directors; they want to know their club is safe and that their team will win games. The entrenched attitude here is similar to that towards Bain and McIntyre. Whyte used another broadcast outlet, Scottish Television, to insist that his Rangers legacy will be a positive one. Which is, external and media wars aside, the most meaningful issue here. After all, that relates to Rangers' very future. The message from Whyte about the onset of administration if Rangers lose their upcoming tax tribunal is now more consistent. The consequence of that turn of events has seemed obvious for months, with the club patently unable to cope with a bill that could reach £49m in the event of defeat to HMRC. Whyte, as the secured creditor, would then inherit a business with only his chosen overheads. A key question that has to be asked to Whyte is: "Who will be the primary beneficiary based on the structure in place if Rangers enter administration?" Without threats from a bank or taxman, Whyte could then be in a position to sell Rangers on for a profit on an investment that was initially £18m and has since increased. Yet the penalties and brutal realities attached to administration go beyond those that would hamper Rangers' SPL title bid; few financial analysts see any sense in this being a chosen course of action for Whyte when he took Rangers on. The man himself insists everything possible will be done to keep Rangers from administration, an entirely understandable public stance. Still, the most bemusing aspect of Whyte's Rangers takeover â?? as has been the case from day one â?? relates to why he completed the deal with such a massive tax liability possibly forthcoming. The other recurring theme around Ibrox is what will happen if Rangers successfully challenge the tax authorities. If that occurs, Whyte will control a business without two of the main creditors that have cast such a long shadow over the club in recent times. Rangers would, in such circumstances, be more attractive to potential investors. Would Whyte, at that stage, seek a short-term profit by selling the club on, or prove that his talk of long-term investment is meaningful? Before he took over, those in the Ibrox boardroom were convinced Whyte did not intend playing a long game at Rangers. It may be no coincidence that Dave King, who has been linked with buying Rangers regularly in the past, has not severed his ties by resigning as a nonexecutive director since Whyte took over. Whyte's hint that Rangers would not challenge any loss of the tax tribunal highlights at least one thing. That is, he wants Rangers' circumstances clarified as soon as possible. In the meantime, a lack of European football in any form leaves an obvious hole in their income stream. The club have been embattled for some time, but how Whyte handles forthcoming events will be more worthy of scrutiny than what has come before. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/oct/21/craig-whyte-rangers?CMP=twt_gu

Rangers manager Ally McCoist insists he is content with his working relationship with Craig Whyte. Club owner Whyte has said he will take legal action over a BBC Scotland documentary which carried allegations of criminality in his past dealings. And McCoist said: "He's been great, absolutely smashing. I spoke to him this morning as I always do. "We are both in total agreement that the most important thing that we have to focus on is Sunday's game." Scottish Premier League leaders Rangers visit Hearts with a seven-point advantage over second-placed Motherwell. Continue reading the main story Our players to a man have remained wonderfully focused and they are still focused Ally McCoist The documentary heard from a government agency that Whyte controlled a company despite being banned as a director. Prior to the programme's broadcast on Thursday evening, Rangers withdrew all co-operation with the BBC. Meanwhile, the BBC strongly rejects claims of bias against the Ibrox club and insists the content of Rangers: The Inside Story was accurate and in the public interest. But McCoist refused to discuss the matter and is sure his players will not be affected by any off-field issues, with Rangers also involved in two separate disputes with HM Revenue and Customs, as well as a legal battle with former directors Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre. "I will not comment on any television programmes," he added. "You can only influence things that you can influence and we can't have an influence on other things. "The boys have been doing particularly well in the league and it's pleasing. Hopefully that will continue. "My players are really focused and everybody should know that. "Over the last four or five years there has been ups and downs as there are at any club. "Our players to a man have remained wonderfully focused and they are still focused. "We will continue to be a solid team with a great spirit." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15407927.stm

RANGERS may face another legal fight if they try to boot the BBC out of Ibrox. The footy giants â?? already mired in legal battles with ex-directors and the taxman â?? could be sued by the Beeb if club supremo Craig Whyte carries out his vow to banish the broadcaster. We told yesterday how the Gers owner snapped over a documentary â?? due to be screened tonight â?? he insists is "muckraking". But the corporation's deal with the SPL means the BBC must have access to every ground in the SPL as well as key interviews. And last night Beeb insiders say the broadcaster WILL take legal action if the club fails to meet the terms of its TV and radio obligations. One source said: "Rangers must like going to court because I can't see the BBC having any other option if they insist on this ban. "It's written on a contract that the BBC has the right to report on games." Earlier this week, former finance chief Donald McIntyre followed ex-director Martin Bain into court in a bid to ring-fence part of the club's assets. Rangers were last night unavailable for comment but a BBC spokesman said: "We hope it can be resolved." Meanwhile, Whyte, 40, hit out at critics, saying: "I'm only here to save Rangers." Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3882642/Beeb-v-Bears-could-end-up-in-court.html#ixzz1bIsNyrHI

On the face of it, there isn't a lot to be worried about as Rangers fans. After all, a cursory look at the SPL table shows us sitting proudly at the top less than six months after winning the title for the 3rd season in a row. Poor European performances aside, surely the Rangers support should have smiles as wide as the Clyde? Unfortunately the answer is no. While most fans will be enjoying what is happening on the park; off the field we're less confident. Oft-discussed tax 'queries', boardroom reshuffles, legal challenges and confusion over proposed government laws means it isn't easy to find a Rangers supporter who is genuinely certain of the club's competitive future. Indeed, even when Craig Whyte did finally take over the club there wasn't a great deal of real excitement despite the investment promises he made shortly after. Rightly or wrongly, cynicism was more prevalent - perhaps a remnant of failed promises from the previous regime? Moreover, a lack of demonstrable positive business experiences (and finance) from the new owner, coupled with the old and new tax investigations meant that rather than welcoming Whyte with open arms, many fans were guarded to say the least. To that end, the relationship between the owner and the support hasn't really improved. Although we've seen Gordon Smith appointed as 'Director of Football' the other names apparently involved are less well known to fans. Ali Russell, Phil Betts and Gary Withey may all stand up to scrutiny if you examine their business CVs but are they Rangers men in the same way people like John Greig, John McLelland and Alistair Johnston could show? Also, why haven't their directorships been announced to PLUS? Of course, just because someone isn't a Rangers fan per se doesn't mean they won't do a good job in their roles. In fact, it could be argued that having more 'neutral' minds in charge will mean more suitable business strategies. After all, if a self-professed Rangers man like Sir David Murray can run us to the brink of bankruptcy via a string of dubious tax schemes (aided and abetted by those named above) then that perhaps points to the wrong model. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing just where we stand with Whyte. Despite a low key meeting with the Assembly (and another one with the Trust tomorrow) his intentions are no more obvious than they were before he took over. Clearly, as touched on earlier, our European failures this season means finances will be even tighter than usual, so it is worrying that no updated plan of action has been discussed. We can only hope the Trust can ask the questions that matter. Can we really expect any positive outcome though? Without wishing to be gratuitously negative, the short-term outlook is bleak. In previous seasons without essential European income, we've lost up to £10million unless we sell key players. Given none were sold in the last window, can we really afford to turn down offers come January? How will such potential sales affect our title challenge? Add in £4million of outstanding tax claims; ring-fenced director dismissal costs and what must be large lawyer fees (which we also struggle to pay); then this is indicative of palpable pecuniary issues. If we take that line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, does this mean administration is more likely than ever before - irrespective of the larger HMRC tribunal due to be ruled on next month? If so, what are the ramifications of such a decision? Would a pre-pack agreement and ten point deduction be enough to start again afresh? How would the history and reputation of our existing club be affected? How would MIH and SDM's contribution be examined? Some of the answers may come on Thursday night via what is likely to be a less than positive BBC expose by Mark Daley of Panorama fame. Suffice to say, these answers won't be the ones we want to hear and quite frankly, the fact our club is now under investigation on three fronts (legal, media and tax) isn't just embarrassing but a scandal which should concern every Rangers supporter. Now, some will say our current predicament isn't one of Whyte's making. That's true and it's unfair to suggest the guy is to blame for existing HMRC problems. However, it has been several months now since he bought the club and he has yet to really show us how he intends to run it. With next to no board of directors and minimal investment, how can he possibly do so effectively? To conclude, as Halloween approaches, we certainly do have people knocking on the door of our proud club. They're dressed as tax men, lawyers, and journalists - and all are frightening me to varying degrees. However, the scariest aspect for me is that we've still to see the person who is answering the door to these people. Who is Craig Whyte and what costume is he wearing - the sheep or the wolf? It is beyond time for him to show his hand - no more sweeties and no more small change. What is the future of Rangers Football Club?