Search the Community

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/289-terminological-inexactitude

Petition by Sevco Scotland 5088 Glasgow, United Kingdom 134 Million pounds was lost to the Scottish taxpayer when Rangers died and were liquidated. Now a year after their liquidation they are claiming the 5 stars of the liquidated club. This club has only won the now equally defunct SFA Division 3 of Scottish football and claims to the contrary are a disgraceful attempt to claim the history of a liquidated club. Transparency is needed. If they claim the oldco's history then they should pay its debts! http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/spfl-take-the-5-stars-of-the-oldco-rangers-off-the-newco-s-shirt

Written by The Ref: The definition of sabotage is:- 1. The destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in time of war. 2. Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavour; deliberate subversion. The term "sabotage" derives from French factory workers throwing their wooden shoes ("sabots") into machinery to jam them and stop production. In a sense this was the very first use of industrial sabotage. The aim of industrial sabotage is to cause maximum disruption and/or damage by secretive means. Often industrial sabotage works hand in hand with industrial and economic espionage. Economic espionage is often orchestrated by governments and is international in scope, while industrial espionage is more often national and occurs between companies or corporations. The purpose of espionage is to gather knowledge about an organisation or organisations and it may describe activities such as theft of trade secrets, bribery, blackmail and technological surveillance. In any business, including football, information can make the difference between success and failure; if secret information is stolen, the competitive playing field can be levelled or even tipped in favour of a competitor. Although a lot of information-gathering is achieved legally through competitive intelligence; at times other parties feel the best way to get information is to take it. This commonly occurs in one of two ways. Either a disgruntled or dissatisfied employee appropriates information to advance their own interests or to damage the company or, secondly, a competitor or foreign government seeks information to advance its own technological or financial interest. ‘Moles’ or trusted insiders are generally considered the best sources for economic or industrial espionage. Individuals may leave one company to take up employment with another and take sensitive information with them. As a Rangers supporter, I read the above and draw great similarities to what we have witnessed over the last few years and continue to witness now. Have the normal operations of our club been disrupted? Yes, and they still are. As we endeavoured to rid ourselves of the debt we were carrying under David Murray, were we hindered? Yes. David Murray was being pressurised to sell the club by the Lloyds banking group, despite successfully managing to reduce the debt we were carrying. With the outcome of the ‘Big Tax Case, still in the balance, and with sensitive and confidential information surrounding the tax case being leaked illegally to the general public through the media and online blogs on an almost daily basis, it made it almost impossible for Murray to find a buyer. How convenient it was then, when a little known man by the name of Craig Whyte appeared on the scene to buy the club for the princely sum of £1. Quite who Craig Whyte is, where his loyalties lay, or the real reasons why he bought our club are still not known, but I for one would like to know what his real part was in the destruction of our club. Was he put in place to deliberately drag our club down? Was he a pawn in a much bigger game? Was he really just a charlatan and fly-by-night who saw an opportunity to fleece one of Britain’s great institutions? Will we ever know? When we survived with our history intact, I suspect many thought that we had reached the end game and could move on. It is obvious that we will not be allowed to move on. We are still being attacked; confidential information is still being stolen from our club and leaked to the public. Whether this is being done by a mole or electronically, I don’t know, but somehow that information is finding its way into the public domain and damaging our club in its efforts to stabilise, move on and recover from the events of the last few years, and it must be stopped. I am convinced that a major crime has been and is still being committed here, and the only way to get to the bottom of this is to have a full independent police investigation. The leaking of confidential information itself is a breach of the Official Secrets Act 1989 and warrants an investigation. I don’t want to appear paranoid, but something stinks in this whole saga, a saga which has brought Rangers fans into conflict with each other, simply due to the lack of honesty, truth and clarification surrounding this whole mess. The thought that a group or organisation may have deliberately tried to destroy the institution which is Rangers Football Club may seem like something from the film Mission Impossible, but could it actually be nearer the truth than some would like us to believe? http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/article.php?i=97&a=industrial-sabotage

I see TLB's poop troop got beat 2-0 by Shakhter Karagandy over in Kazakhstan earlier.

Analysis: is Blue Knight Paul Murray fighting a losing battle? Hugh Macdonald Wednesday 21 August 201 THE shifting quicksands of the Rangers saga have consumed a variety of personalities. Charles Green, the bluff Yorkshireman from central casting, joined the ranks yet again of those who have been banished from the drama on the south side but a more significant character now has a leading role in what will happen at Ibrox. The name of Paul Murray was absent from a Rangers statement in the wake of the dismissal of Green as a consultant but it does not require the combined skills of Interpol to deduce that he forms a block to any immediate resolution to the boardroom problems. To summarise the plot so far, if somewhat crudely: there is a move from outside the boardroom to remove Brian Stockbridge, Craig Mather and Bryan Smart and replace them with Frank Blin and Murray. A club statement last night read: "This board has been working tirelessly to find an intelligent solution to the request for a general meeting and all of the directors are open to sensible and reasonable additions. For instance, the board are not against Frank Blin becoming a director but do have reservations about other proposals.'' When it comes to Murray, some on the board have more reservations than the Apaches. There was a feeling of relief that Green had gone, a belief among his opponents that a metaphorical stake had finally been placed through the heart of the significant shareholder, but there was also an anxiety about his almost diabolical powers of recovery. The most pressing difficulty for Rangers, however, centres on Murray. The opposition group could make a compromise by suggesting Blin, former executive chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers Scotland, is joined on the board by A.N Other. Jim McColl, part of the outside group, would not consider such a role but the more intriguing aspect is the willingness or otherwise of Murray to relinquish his attempt to join a board that needs stability. The indications last night were surprising concrete given the fluidity of events at Ibrox. First, it seems there exists a strong aversion to bringing in Murray from among existing board members. Second, there was no sign of Murray issuing any sort of statement saying he would fall on his sword to facilitate peace, at least for the present. The objections are believed to be both personal and on matters of business. The accountant was part of the board before Craig Whyte bought the club and is seen by some as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. One City source said: "Murray had his chance to influence matters when he was on the board and then had his chance with the Blue Knights. There is no mood among some on the board to bring him back into the fold.'' The private concerns are shrouded in claim and counter claim. The Rangers story has been extraordinarily messy with dirt thrown in all directions. Information has leaked steadily. Murray, rightly or wrongly, has been suspected as one of those who have used media outlets to his advantage. If true, he would stand in a crowded dock as the briefings have come from almost every source, every faction. However, the fog of war has cleared just a little over Ibrox. Green has been sacked, disposed of by an increasingly frustrated and determined Mather. There is now an opportunity for compromise and even, heaven forfend, resolution of the boardroom struggle. This could come in a variety of forms. Two options are most likely. The first is Murray stands down and the McColl group is allowed to bring in Blin and an unspecified ally. The second is that Murray, backed by McColl, stands his ground and maintains his attempt to come on to the board. This eventuality would be fast-tracked by the approval of a vote at the extraordinary general meeting. The crux of the matter is this: if the McColl group is sure of the support of a group of shareholders, it will feel it has no need to sacrifice the candidature of Murray. McColl and his cohorts will flex their muscle and the Blue Room will undergo yet another change of cast. Mather, it must be presumed, would not wait to be pushed and Stockbridge and Smart would face a limited future. There are a couple of possible twists, of course. This is a Rangers story, after all. The first is Murray could step aside temporarily, peace could break out and he could then be brought on board at a later stage. The second is that the present board finds enough support to win any vote. There is also the possibility of hearing the less than dulcet tones of Green joining the increasingly raucous debate. He may be gone but no one will be surprised at another scene-stealing interruption from the former chief executive. However, the narrative is now about Murray. Will he walk away or will he pursue his ambition to be on the board? History suggests it be latter option. The arithmetic will decide whether the erstwhile Blue Knight finally lands his prize. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/analysis-is-blue-knight-paul-murray-fighting-a-losing-battle.1377061992

Tom English: â??Paul Murrayâ??s bid was well-meaning but not based in realityâ?? Published on Sunday 4 December 2011 01:32 PAUL Murray, the former non-executive director of Rangers, raised his head above the parapet in The Scotsman yesterday when expressing his concerns about the way the club is being run by Craig Whyte, his old foe from the takeover process earlier in the year. This column has given short shrift to Murray in the past â?? and especially to his cohort, Alastair â??No Surrenderâ? Johnston, the great show-boater of the old guard. That is not to dismiss Murrayâ??s concerns over Whyte. Heâ??s entitled to be uncertain about Rangersâ?? future and worried about Whyteâ??s stewardship. There is so much secrecy and inconsistency surrounding Whyte that cynicism is not just an understandable instinct, but a necessary one. The contradictions are many. In October, Whyte gave an interview to STV in which he stated that he nothing to hide in his professional life. An hour later a BBC investigation revealed that Whyte had been disqualified from being a company director for seven years. At the outset of his ownership he rubbished the possibility that Rangers might go into administration. Now he is saying that it has always been an option. He said from day one that he would appeal should the HMRC decision go against the club, but he appears to have changed his mind on that one. In the wake of the BBC documentary he stated that he was going to waste no time in suing the broadcaster, but it seems he has not taken that step yet. He might yet, of course. There is a suspicious air around Whyte and much of it is of his own making, born out of his determination to keep his business affairs as private as possible. When he is asked to name a couple of his companies that he is particularly proud of and then refuses to name them, people are entitled to wonder what heâ??s all about. The mystery creates an information vacuum that then gets filled with speculation. Informed speculation, some of it. But the fact is that, when it comes to Whyte (his money and his motives), a lot of what is out there is little more than guesswork. His merits as Rangersâ?? owner can only be judged in time. This is where this column and Murray go our separate ways because there are things that Murray says that just donâ??t stand up to any kind of scrutiny. First of all, Murray expresses surprise at the talk of Rangers, potentially, going into administration. â??I am puzzled that administration is even being discussed,â? he said. â??The HMRC tax tribunal will not deliver a decision until well into next year so at the moment there is no tax liability to pay.â? Puzzled at administration being discussed? Hold on a second, there. Johnston, his big mate on the old board, was talking about administration away back in April. In fact, he got himself embroiled in a controversy about whether or not he stated the club could, in a worst-case scenario, actually go bust. â??Yes, if there is an excessive (HMRC) judgment against us then we might not be in a position to pay it,â? said Johnston on 1 April. â??But I never said the club would go bust as a result of it. The very worst thing that could happen is that we lose the case and, as a result, could be looking at going into administration.â? So it was OK for Johnston (and by extension, Murray) to talk about administration but, when Whyte does it, Murray is â??puzzledâ?. Heâ??ll have to explain that one. And, while he is at it, he might enlighten us further on his supposed counter-bid for the club and why he waited and waited and waited before he did something, which, effectively, was nothing. According to Whyte, it amounted to a â??five line e-mail sent from his Blackberryâ? when the Whyte deal was as good as done. Sir David Murray, it is understood, gave it no credence whatsoever, nor did Lloyds Bank. And nor would Johnston have given it the time of day had he applied his own rules to his mateâ??s offer. Johnston wanted transparency, but the Murray bid supposedly involved a £25 million share issue underwritten by a businessman whose name he would not reveal, with other backers coming on board as well. He wouldnâ??t name them either. The â??bidâ? also stated that Lloyds would only be paid off in stages, this despite Johnston having earlier stated that a prerequisite of any takeover was that Lloyds were paid off in full and removed from the Rangers landscape permanently. Murrayâ??s solution to the HMRC issue was to get Sir David to pay whatever bill came the clubâ??s way. Lovely idea, but unless he is an expert in hypnosis there was no way Paul Murray was going to get the then owner to agree to that. So his â??bidâ? was probably well-meaning but not based in reality. Meanwhile, Whyte was ploughing on and doing a deal. Itâ??s not a deal that Paul Murray or Johnston like and Whyte is not a man they have faith in, but the alternative was that Sir David kept the club â?? and they didnâ??t want that either. The fact is that, when Johnston came in as chairman, the mission statement he set out for himself was to find a new owner who would liberate the club from the grip of Lloyds Bank. Johnston found nobody. He failed. Paul Murray failed, too. He had his chance to buy the club and he didnâ??t take it. He sat and waited and came up with far too little, far too late. â??Everything we said has come home to roost,â? said Murray. â??I donâ??t take any pleasure from that. . . Talking about administration, being pursued by suppliers and the possibility of a fit and proper investigation at the SFA. . . itâ??s humiliating and embarrassing.â? Yes, itâ??s troubling, no doubt about it. But there was no nirvana option available to Rangers. The club had to accept Whyteâ??s offer or stick with Sir David and live with the consequences. There was no third way worthy of consideration. Sniping from the sidelines is understandable. For sure, Whyte needs to be scrutinised given the potential horrors that await the club. But to Paul Murray we ask: â??What would you have done?â? Once the attempted brainwashing of Sir David into accepting liability for a £49m tax debt ended in failure, what was the alternative? And the answer is, there wasnâ??t one.

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

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, under threat of administration because of a £50 million claim from the taxman, will renew their ambition to gain entry to the Premier League as well as reconsidering proposals for an â??Atlantic Leagueâ??, according to new owner and chairman Craig Whyte. Her Majestyâ??s Revenue and Customs is seeking £49 million in back-taxes, interest and penalties from Rangers, a claim that could see one of the great institutions of British and European football become the gameâ??s highest profile financial failure. In an exclusive interview with Telegraph Sport, Whyte said he would actively seek to leave the SPL to secure Rangersâ?? financial future, and suggested the club could even consider running two teams, one each side of the border, once the case and its implications have been dealt with. Whyte also confirmed that while he believes Rangers will win the case, administration is the likeliest outcome if the tax tribunal, scheduled for November, goes against them. Asked if administration would follow, Whyte said: â??It is one of the possibilities we have looked at, yes. The choice, in terms of an adverse finding, is pretty obvious really.â? Administration would bring an immediate 10-point penalty and the possibility of more sanctions, depending on the clubâ??s exit strategy. But Whyte is adamant that there is no threat to Rangersâ?? long-term future. â??Whatever happens Rangers will be moving forward. I will not allow the club to go bust. I can control the debt process absolutely, and whatever happens Rangers is going to be there playing in the SPL at Ibrox.â? Whyte would like them to play further south as well, describing Rangers as â??a Premier League club with the revenue of a Scottish clubâ?. He has committed to finding £5 million of working capital and £5 million a season for transfers, and may bring in third-party investment to help him do so. But he sees Rangersâ?? future in a move away from the Scottish game. â??I think I can turn this around and sort out the problem. I have put money in and Iâ??m prepared to put money in but I have said it is not a bottomless pit,â? he said. â??We are in Scottish football so it is not a viable proposition to go put £100 million into the team. If we went forward into another league set-up, say the English Premier League, then it is very viable to put £100 million more in. We are not there at the moment, but we would like to be. â??[Joining the Premier League] is clearly something that we would like to see examined, it is something we are working on behind the scenes. But there are other potential ideas in terms of European leagues, joining some of the Nordic countries, the Netherlands to create a league.â? Whyte bought a controlling stake from former chairman Sir David Murray last May for £1, assuming responsibility for £18 million of bank debt and the tax liabilities in the process. Since then early exits from the Champions League, the Europa League and most recently the League Cup have compounded the financial issues, and questions about Whyteâ??s background have intensified. The first Old Firm game of the season 10 days ago brought welcome relief with a 4-2 win over Celtic, and in the febrile atmosphere of Glasgow football that may be all that really matters to supporters. The financial issues may not be resolved away so easily. The threat to Rangers stems from a claim for £35 million in back-tax and interest and £14 million in fines relating to the Murray regimeâ??s use of a tax-avoidance device called Employee Benefit Trusts. HMRC claims Rangers wrongly used EBTs for a decade, effectively to reclassify regular salaries as loans that avoided income tax and National Insurance. Rangersâ?? own advice when the schemes were established was that they were legal, and HMRC made no complaint until last year, when it changed its guidance on EBTs. It has now targeted Rangers among 5,000 companies it believes misused EBTs. Whyte believes the club have been singled out as a test case and accuses HMRC of leaking information. Interest intensified earlier this month when High Court judge Lord Hodge, hearing former chief executive Martin Bainâ??s claim for wrongful dismissal, ruled that the club faces a â??real and substantial risk of insolvencyâ?. Whyte acknowledges the risk, but insists the clubâ??s long-term future is secure. He has repaid the £18 million to Lloyds, a fact confirmed by the bank, and transferred the debt to Rangersâ?? holding company, which is ultimately owned by his Liberty Capital Limited, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. Whyte has committed to writing off the debt if the club avoids administration. This structure means Whyte is the largest secured creditor and has control of any administration. â??Nothing is out of my hands because I control the club, I am the only secured creditor, or rather Rangers FC Group is. So on any decision, while HMRC might push, the group company controls the debt.â? This may be tested in administration. SPL rules require clubs to exit administration with the agreement of all creditors â?? a Creditors Voluntary Agreement â?? but HMRC is unlikely to agree. The SPL has complete discretion over what penalties to apply if a CVA is not agreed, but Whyte is certain they will not face penalties that could end in relegation. â??You might say that is a theoretical possibility but that is not going to happen.â? Whyte defends his business record which, by his own admission, is mixed. He says he specialises in turning round companies in trouble, and as such Rangers was a marriage of personal and professional interest. He is listed as a current or former director of 11 UK-based companies, some of which have failed. â??I get involved in businesses that are struggling and that means you sometimes get involved in the messy side of things. But overall I have had more successes than failures,â? he said. Whyte, who has homes in the Scottish Highlands, Londonâ??s Belgravia and Monaco, will not be drawn on his personal wealth â?? â??It would make my life a lot easier if I did but, frankly, Iâ??m not going to have journalists going into every aspect of my private lifeâ? â?? but says he has genuine business credentials. â??I have got four offices in the City, I have venture capital funds, I have asset management companies, I have stock-broking businesses, I have businesses in France, in Holland, I have got thousands of employees, but I donâ??t see why I should make every aspect of that public. â??Iâ??ve got everything from financial services to ticketing to cinema services, asset management, construction, I have got investments in all these sectors. I operate like a venture capital partnership so at any one time thereâ??s 20-25 companies in the portfolio. "I operate a family company in the city too that manages the family investments. We do all sorts of deals, public to private, commodity trading, Forex, a wide variety, but we try and keep it low key. â??Sometimes we might own them for two years, sometimes for five. But with Rangers we want to create a long-term sustainable business, which we will. But it's going to be a rocky road.â? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8792112/Craig-Whyte-actively-seeking-to-leave-the-SPL-to-secure-Rangers-financial-future.html

I guess we all knew, but reading this brings a tear to the eye. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15041278 A judge who froze £480,000 of Rangers assets has said the club's new owner recognises it could go under if it loses a disputed £49m tax claim. The detail emerged in a published opinion from judge Lord Hodge, who is hearing former chief executive Martin Bain's case for unfair dismissal. The judge said the takeover deal for Rangers had been structured to protect the new owner if the tax case was lost. He said this was "an appreciation...of a risk of insolvency". Mr Bain is pursuing a £1.3m damages claim against Rangers at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. He raised the claim alleging breach of contract following the takeover at Rangers FC by venture capitalist Craig Whyte from former owner Sir David Murray. 'Not persuaded' On 13 September, Lord Hodge granted a warrant to ring-fence £480,000 of the Ibrox club's assets, pending the outcome of Mr Bain's case, after deciding there was "real and substantial risk of insolvency". Martin Bain is suing Rangers for unfair dismissal This centred on the, as yet undecided, outcome of a disputed tax claim from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which totals £49m in tax and penalties. In his written opinion, Lord Hodge stated: "I am not persuaded on the material placed before me that Rangers is presently insolvent on either of the tests of practical insolvency or absolute insolvency." The judge, however, said he did believe there was a genuine threat to the club from the tax case and believed the new owner fully recognised this threat. Lord Hodge referred to a circular sent to shareholders of Rangers on 3 June 2011. He stated that this document "disclosed that The Rangers FC Group Limited (formerly Wavetower Limited) had purchased 85.3% of the shares of Rangers for the cash sum of £1 and had given certain undertakings". Continue reading the main story â?? Start Quote I would have expected the chief executive of a public company to be aware whether or not his employment contract had the needed shareholder approvalâ? End Quote Lord Hodge Judge Lord Hodge said The Rangers FC Group Limited had taken over Rangers' £18m indebtedness to the Lloyds Banking Group, "and obtained an assignation of the bank's securities over Rangers' assets". According to the circular, this debt would be waived if Rangers had "not suffered an insolvency event within 90 days of the club's appeal in relation to the tax claim". The judge noted that until the case was settled, and the debt was waived, all investment in Rangers by The Rangers FC Group Limited would be treated as increasing the club's debt to it. Lord Hodge concluded that "this carefully structured deal" through which The Rangers FC Group Limited has secured a charge over Rangers assets and made the waiving of the club's debt conditional on a positive outcome to the tax case, "shows an appreciation by The Rangers FC Group of a risk of insolvency resulting from that claim". The judge added: "When I asked Mr Napier (Rangers QC) if he could clarify Rangers' position in relation to the HMRC claim for £49m...he was not able to assist as he had no instructions in relation to that matter. "I must therefore treat Mr Bain's assertions as to the extent of HMRC's claim as uncontradicted, although I acknowledge that the claim itself is the subject of an appeal by Rangers." Elsewhere in the opinion, Lord Hodge noted that Rangers pointed out that Mr Bain had a 39-month contract agreed with the club in September 2009. The club's QC said that a long-term service contract of this length was prohibited under the Companies Act 2006 unless it had been approved by a resolution of the members of the company. Mr Bain's QC said his client did not know whether the members of Rangers had approved the contract. Lord Hodge added: "I found that surprising as I would have expected the chief executive of a public company to be aware whether or not his employment contract had the needed shareholder approval."

CRAIG WHYTE, Rangersââ?¬â?¢ new majority shareholder, has responded bullishly to the demands made by deposed chairman Alastair Johnston that he must ââ?¬Å?walk the walk and not just ââ?¬Å?talk the talkââ?¬Â by reiterating his financial commitment to the club. Johnston, axed on Monday night along with director Paul Murray after the pair refused to resign, had called on supporters to ââ?¬Å?remain vigilant and continue to exert pressure on Mr Whyte to support the club financially as he has publically committed to doââ?¬Â. In a statement yesterday on the clubââ?¬â?¢s website, however, Whyte confirmed that Rangersââ?¬â?¢ debt to Lloyds Banking Group had been cleared, and insisted he remained committed to backing new manager Ally McCoist financially with a view to improving the squad. ââ?¬Å?It is a huge privilege and honour to have become the majority shareholder at Rangers Football Club,ââ?¬Â he said. ââ?¬Å?My commitment to take the club forward is unwavering and, like all Rangers supporters, I want to build on the tremendous success achieved by the team in recent years. ââ?¬Å?I believe most Rangers supporters understand that, as a result of the takeover, the clubââ?¬â?¢s debt to the Lloyds Banking Group has been cleared and I have repeatedly stated to the board my intentions to invest in the team. ââ?¬Å?I have had discussions with Ally McCoist regarding his ambition to secure players already playing for the club and also to bring new faces to the squad. These discussions will resume when Ally returns to Ibrox this week. ââ?¬Å?These are exciting times for Rangers and the clubââ?¬â?¢s supporters. This past seasonââ?¬â?¢s achievements were truly great and I am determined to continue that success for Rangers and our supporters around the world.ââ?¬Â As well as removing Johnston and Murray from their positions, Whyte has also suspended Martin Bain, Rangersââ?¬â?¢ chief executive, and Donald McIntyre, the finance director, pending an internal investigation. Whyte, who assumed ownership of the club on May 6, would not expand on the reasons behind their suspension, but tried to assuage supporters that changes were always inevitable following upheaval on this scale. Fears that Bainââ?¬â?¢s removal from office, and Whyteââ?¬â?¢s inexperience in running a football club, would leave Rangers rudderless with the transfer window set to reopen shortly, were dismissed by a source close to the new owner. ââ?¬Å?It is business as usual,ââ?¬Â said the source. ââ?¬Å?He has a team around him who are more than capable of dealing with contracts, financial matters and any other immediate business.ââ?¬Â Whyte will send a document to all 26,000 club shareholders before a deadline of June 6 explaining the background to his takeover, the financial commitments and other crucial details. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/rangers/whyte-reiterates-his-unwavering-commitment-to-invest-in-rangers-1.1103530

Posted on the official site this morning.

Link from kiddyfiddlerstreet Do you want know a secret? A few people have been asking similar questions over the structure of Rangers’ takeover. It is more productive to write a post about this rather than answer the same question many times. The interesting part about this comes from the obsessive secrecy surrounding this transaction. The secrecy is a bit of a surprise given that one of the few logical reasons for buying a football team is to get a lot of free publicity (David Murray got to go gambling with a billion pounds of HBOS’ cash due to his ability to cultivate an image through his ownership of Rangers. He was not keeping it a secret). Murray International Holdings Ltd sold its 85% shareholding to a company that was then called Wavetower. Wavetower also purchased Rangers’ Ã?£18m bank debt from Lloyds. They did not clear that debt. Rangers FC now owes its parent company this money. (An additional Ã?£10m or so is also owed to other creditors. This has also not been cleared). Wavetower changed its name to The Rangers FC Group Ltd. on 12th May. The directors of The Rangers FC Group Ltd. are: Craig Whyte Andrew Ellis Phillip Betts The single share issued in the company that owns Rangers is held by: Jordan Nominees (Scotland) Ltd. Nominee shareholdings are used to hide the identity of the shareholders in a company. There are legitimate reasons why you might do this e.g. if Shell had just developed a new type of fuel and did not want its competitors or partners on other ventures to know that it was behind the new invention. They would register the patent under a company that uses a nominee shareholder to disguise the true owner. The nominee shareholder is obliged by contract to act on behalf of the real “beneficial owners”. So, if you did not want your name in the papers as being an owner of Rangers FC, then you can hide behind a nominee shareholder while still having legal authority over your investment. Given that Craig Whyte, Andrew Ellis, and Phillip Betts are listed with Companies House as directors, they do not get much benefit from secrecy. Presumably there is someone else behind the scenes who would like to keep a low profile. The secret of who really owns Rangers would be of interest to virtually the entire population of Scotland and many people beyond. Do not expect anyone in the Scottish media to even dare raise this issue. http://rangerstaxcase.com/2011/05/23/do-you-want-to-know-a-secret/

Ok, before the takeover we were about �£22M in the red and had no cash whatsoever to spend. Our state was precarious and that wonderful chairman of ours even implied we could go out of business before hastily retracting his words and rephrasing. But without any doubt we weren't stable. Now we have a new owner, mooted at a �£52.5M takeover. He owns us now, because he bought SDM's shares. But what of our general situation? Have we been fixed yet? Has he cleared us with Lloyds? Do we now have money to spend? I've seen a lot of good words in the press and the optimism is sky high, especially now we've got 54, but in the cold light of day, are we actually out the predicament we were in, or is it still to be resolved?

Just Received this from a tim in work. for months he has been going on about some sort of CM Guru knowing everything and being spot on about Takeover and HMRC case. found it quite funny to see how evident their pain is. "The Guru - Let's get very clear here... Rangers FC will bear ALL of the tax case. Shareholders are not responsible for the liabilities of a limited company. So Whyte will not have to pay anything personally. So despite the soothing words issued by the Hun media, Whyte now has GBP18m at stake in Rangers... and stage 2 of the liquidation strategy will be to flip all of that GBP18m "investment" as debt on Rangers books (similar to the Glazers). So his "equity" (or the value of his shares will remain ridiculously low), but Rangers FC will owe Whyte and his backers GBP18m. They will make sure that they have security interests on that GBP18m debt (in fact- they have probably purchased the debt directly from Lloyds... so there can be no claims of having tried to hide assets from the tax man). MIH receives GBP1 (and FYI... Sir Davie will not see even a penny of that!) And Whyte (or a company he will have formed) will own the shares. (They have to offer the same price per share to every shareholder!) So, expect Whyte to sell as many players as possible this summer. The cash will leave Ibrox asap. (He will pay off his own and his backers initial investments). So when HMRC hit, the only sellable assets left will be Ibrox and Murray Park. (And even they are highly debatable and will take a long time to develop... years before money is made on them). If a new club forms and wants to have Ibrox back, he could sell for GBP10-20m... which would be a fraction of the cost of rebuilding. Of worst case, he redevelops the sites in a few years and pockets a few million profit from the whole deal. "

Statement by the Independent Board of Rangers Football Club plc More...

With most media sources now suggesting the takeover of Rangers is likely to be announced to the Stock Exchange later this week, it seems the question is no longer if this deal will happen but when. On the surface the price and stipulations agreed by Whyte look to be a good for the club and supporters alike. The vast majority of the long term bank loan will be eradicated and other existing debt removed while 'new' money made available to invest into the club - around �£30million over 5 years if the 'sources' are to be believed. Given our existing owner (and his directors) have struggled to provide anything similar without selling players or relying on Champions League money it will be fascinating to see how Whyte et al intend supplying their investment. Will we be exchanging old debt for new debt and one nosey bank for another? After all, surely Whyte won't be putting in �£30million of his own money - if indeed he does have the net-worth as to afford such a sum? It is obvious then that at this stage we have more questions than answers. So much so, that we're reliant on Sir David Murray, Lloyds Bank and the 'independent bid oversight sub-committee' to conduct due-diligence on the buyer on our behalf. We can only hope they do so without prejudice given all these parties will have their own self-interest to look after. Will Rangers FC and its loyal support really be high on their list of priorities though? The very fact we're basing our concerns on hope rather than expectation is perhaps as damning as any in-depth post-mortem on the Murray era. Much better then to look to the future and while our questions to Craig Whyte may occur after the fact they're still worth asking. It is probable that he'll be eager to meet with the Rangers Assembly quickly after buying so I'm sure they'll be ready to represent us all in asking the difficult questions that need to be answered. A bland interview with a salivating Chic Young just won't do. As a shareholder and season-ticket holder (though not yet renewed) I'll be expecting the Assembly to concentrate on the following few key areas - though I'm sure we'll all have our own equally important questions and concerns as well. - Who is Craig Whyte? Simplistic Google searches notwithstanding the lack of information on Whyte really is quite incredible. Other than a few failed UK businesses and questions about just how long his visas in Monaco lasted, we know next to nothing about this 'successful businessman'. Obviously he must have some sort of proof of what he offers - both strategically and financially. We need to know more about his past, his future and who his partners are. This should be the easiest question for him to answer. - Where is the investment coming from? �£5million of 'new' money for 5 seasons irrespective of player sales and European participation is a fair sum given the club struggles to make a profit otherwise in the stagnant SPL market. To that end, where is this money coming from, who is providing it and what guarantees are placed on the club as a result? This question is less easy to answer and the new regime may not want to reveal vital tactical information but given the club's current situation our concerns are valid so need to be addressed. - Where do you see the club in 5 years time? It may seem daft to ask questions about 2016 before the guy has sat behind his new desk in 2011 but despite the initial successes of the Murray era, Rangers have struggled with anything other than short-term fixes in the last 10 years especially. Furthermore Whyte is promising investment for 5 years but what happens after that? Do he and/or his backers pull out? Will the club be for sale again? What position will it be in? A long-term vision is something we all need and want to buy into. That may be literal if rumours are to be believed about share issues. Of course we could go on all day with a variety of specific questions. I'm sure transfer policy, supporters representation, board make-up, media/PR work, asset protection and youth systems are equally important dependent on our own personal bug-bears. But without answers to the big questions above, any promises on the individual elements have no foundation. To that end, we must concentrate on the wider issues initially. Now, common sense tells us we may not obtain all the answers we want and, of those we do get, we may not like them all. That's fair enough but, at the very least, any welcome for Craig Whyte and his backers should also mean putting him through the wringer as soon as we shake his hand. With �£20million of season ticket money still in reserve he should be equally as keen to answer. Will the grip match the smile?

From the ET: "Whyte had the basic blocks of his bid in place. He has reached an agreement with Sir David Murray for the businessmanâ��s 93% share of the club and has deposited �£28m with Lloyds. "This includes �£18m to satisfy the conditions of the debt repayment and a further �£10m for working capital for the club." So we're paying off the debt and still using Lloyds as our preferred bank and actually depositing working capital? I know the management has changed there but I really hope we move to another institution soon after the takeover.

I wonder when the next deadline finishes?

Rangers are in danger of losing up to 20,000 season ticket holders if the takeover situation is not concluded soon, according to president of the Rangers Supporters Assembly, Andy Kerr. The Ibrox club and its fans are in limbo after chairman Alastair Johnston revealed his intention to explore a shock plan B after casting doubt on the merits of Scottish businessman Craig Whyte's takeover bid, which has been in the pipeline for six months. Kerr said: There is a minority (of fans) who feel the board have lost the plot. But it leaves us needing a decision sooner rather than later, especially with regards season tickets which the club has relied on in a big way since the days of Graeme Souness in the late 1980s." USA-based Johnston revealed that an unnamed Ibrox director had proposed a "fresh issue of new capital" so that �£25million could be invested directly into the debt-hit club. Whyte's deal was expected to be completed on Monday and he is understood to be angry after agreeing a deal with majority shareholder Sir David Murray and main creditor Lloyds Banking Group. A source close to Whyte claimed that his offer was worth �£52.5million, with around half of that figure believed to have been earmarked for investment in the playing squad over five years. While questions remain unanswered about how the alternative bid will be funded, and which director is behind it, Kerr admits fans will continue to question whether investing in a season ticket is the right idea. He added: "They will see this takeover as tiresome and as a net result we could be down by as many as 20,000 season tickets. That will be a huge capital investment missing from the club. I think there are around 38,000 season ticket holders at the moment. "So getting the situation sorted is pivotal to keeping people on board."

Apr 20 2011 Exclusive by Keith Jackson DIRECTOR Paul Murray last night emerged as the mastermind behind a new bid to take over Rangers ââ?¬â?? but he faces a battle to persuade Lloyds Bank to accept his proposal. The shock new bid is the reason Craig Whyteââ?¬â?¢s planned buy-out has been delayed but it does not yet have the backing of Lloyds. Murrayââ?¬â?¢s camp claim their takeover would provide new boss Ally McCoist with an instant Ã?£25million war chest. But Whyteââ?¬â?¢s people hit back last night, claiming their bid is worth Ã?£52.5m. And a source close to Whyte also suggested if he is forced to further delay his attempt while Rangers directors scrutinise Murrayââ?¬â?¢s plan it might be too late. The source said last night: ââ?¬Å?He will not wait much longer.ââ?¬Â Record Sport understands Murray has assembled a consortium of wealthy Rangers fans who are willing to pledge a small fortune to get the club back on its feet. Financial expert Murray wants new shares to be released and has told the Rangers board his group have the cash in place to underwrite the scheme to the tune of Ã?£25m ââ?¬â?? all of which would then be pumped into McCoistââ?¬â?¢s first-team coffers. But the plan hinges on Lloyds keeping the current credit facility in place and allowing the Ibrox debt to be repaid in instalments. The bank still favour Whyteââ?¬â?¢s bid because it guarantees them their money and Murray still has to persuade them to back his offer. Murray made his move after holding crisis talks with current owner Sir David Murray last week. It is understood Murray, who was at Tannadice last night to watch his team take on Dundee United, now plans talks with Sir David and Lloyds in a bid to thrash out a deal. But the word last night was that Murray ââ?¬â?? who teamed up with exiled Rangers director Dave King in a failed Ã?£18m bid for Murray Internationalââ?¬â?¢s shareholding in 2009 ââ?¬â?? wants to do business quickly. Murray, 46, has almost two decades of experience in the private equity industry, working for companies including 3i plc and Deutsche Bank in executive positions. We understands his shock ââ?¬Å?plan Bââ?¬Â proposals have already gained support at boardroom level and also with the current management. A source close to Murrayââ?¬â?¢s group told us: ââ?¬Å?Paul felt it was time to act with a matter of urgency. ââ?¬Å?He has now acted and is looking to get everything finalised as quickly as possible. There is no reason why this canââ?¬â?¢t be concluded in a four to six-week timescale. ââ?¬Å?This is a credible and real solution to the situation which is crippling Rangers. ââ?¬Å?Paul expressed an interest a while ago, as was reported at the time. It came to nothing but things have deteriorated a lot since then. When Craig Whyte arrived on the scene Paul was open-minded. He was prepared to try to help the guy. ââ?¬Å?But itââ?¬â?¢s been dragging on for six months, meanwhile the situation at the club has been getting worse. ââ?¬Å?That is why Paul acted last week. He felt things had reached the point of no return. ââ?¬Å?He loves the club and he could not stand back and allow this crisis to continue. The situation inside the club is critical. ââ?¬Å?He would not put his name to this if he wasnââ?¬â?¢t confident of getting it done.ââ?¬Â Murrayââ?¬â?¢s move came to the fore yesterday in a statement from club chairman Alastair Johnston which was also made to explain to supporters why his board have moved to block Whyteââ?¬â?¢s takeover until the end of the season. Whyte had hoped to conclude the deal on Monday afternoon but the independent five-man board set up to run the rule over any bids refused to pass his offer. They donââ?¬â?¢t have power of veto but business etiquette and boardroom politics means they can delay the process further ââ?¬â?? to allow Murray time to make his move. The independent board will have to examine and question Murrayââ?¬â?¢s plan just as they have tried to do with Whyteââ?¬â?¢s package. And Johnston, in a statement last night, hinted the documents detailing Whyteââ?¬â?¢s offer did not add up. Whyteââ?¬â?¢s team then claimed that any suggestions he didnââ?¬â?¢t have the money or funding he said he could provide were not only untrue but defamatory. Whyte was said to be furious about the further delay but the independent board ââ?¬â?? Johnston, chief executive Martin Bain, finance director Donald McIntyre and non-executive directors John McClelland and John Greig ââ?¬â?? insist they have only recently been able to look at the detailed agreements which David Murray, Lloyds and Whyte have been working on. And it is fair to say they are far from happy or convinced. Johnston said: ââ?¬Å?Based on the documents we have only been able to review within the last week, we are disappointed they did not reflect the investment in the club that we were led to believe for the last few months would be a commitment in the purchase agreement. ââ?¬Å?Given the requirement to repay the bank in full under the proposed transaction, there appears to be only a relatively modest amount of money available that would positively impact the clubââ?¬â?¢s operations, especially as it relates to an urgent requirement to replenish and upgrade the playing squad.ââ?¬Â http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2011/04/20/rangers-director-paul-murray-reveals-rival-bid-to-buy-club-as-craig-whyte-bid-falters-86908-23073941/

RANGERS chairman Alastair Johnston has sparked a high-stakes game of poker - with the club's future in the pot. Late on Monday night, with would-be Gers buyer Craig Whyte desperate to finally seal his �£25million takeover, Johnston REFUSED to be railroaded into rubber-stamping the deal. Instead he listened to another Gers director - understood to be chartered accountant Paul Murray - who promised he could broker a rival �£25m bid to underwrite a new shares issue in the club. SunSport believes that proposal is backed by the financial muscle of South African multi-millionaire Dave King and Lanarkshire motoring tycoon Douglas Park. As manager-in-waiting Ally McCoist sweats over what funds he will have, though, the nightmare news for Gers fans is that process could take 10 WEEKS. Forget all the financial posturing and alleged stalling tactics, the reality is that new boss McCoist could be marooned on July 1 with NO IDEA what his transfer budget is, with the SPL season due to start on July 23. Johnston, though, insisted he had grave doubts whether the transfer budget Whyte promised would materialise. And he said: "Based on the documents we have only been able to review within the last week, we are disappointed that they ultimately did not reflect the investment in the club that we were led to believe for the last few months would be a commitment in the purchase agreement. "Given the requirement to repay the bank in full under the proposed transaction, there appears to be only a relatively modest amount of money available that would positively impact the club's operations, especially as it relates to an urgent requirement to replenish and upgrade the playing squad. "Whilst the proposed transaction has addressed the interests of Lloyds Bank, the Murray Group and Craig Whyte, our perspective is solely directed towards the future of Rangers Football Club." Whyte had pledged McCoist would get at least �£5m per season towards improving the champions' threadbare squad. Johnston, though, is prepared to gamble on examining the shares issue option. He said: "The board has had an approach from one of its directors who wishes us to consider an alternative funding option. This would involve a fresh issue of new capital to raise �£25m to be invested directly into the club. The board believes it has a responsibility to examine this proposal whilst continuing its review of the Craig Whyte transaction. "After six months of limited engagement in the process, the board believes it is not in the best interests of its stake-holders for it to be pressed into an unrealistic timescale." The Independent Sub-Committee of the Rangers board has taken a huge risk. Johnston's soundbites claim he is desperate to make sure the best interests of the 26,400 minority shareholders are served. When the fan in the street picks through the legal language and peers through the smokescreens, though, this looks like one thing. A stalling tactic. Majority shareholder Sir David Murray, Lloyds Bank and Whyte himself are desperate to get the deal over the line. The bankers are CONVINCED the funding is there. Johnston, chief executive Martin Bain, finance director Donald McIntyre, non-executive directors John McClelland and John Greig CAN'T veto the Whyte deal but can shunt it into the sidings at a critical time. Meanwhile, the fans suffer once more. Johnston, though, said: "We have only very recently had the opportunity to meet Craig Whyte and his team. "Moreover, it is only in the last few days we have started to receive the draft agreements outlining the transaction. "We are still awaiting a detailed working capital statement demonstrating there is sufficient funding in place to meet the club's pressing needs. "On Monday, I had a lengthy conversation with Craig Whyte explaining the dilemma the board faces. It was a constructive dialogue, and whilst he expressed his frustration, he understood our position." Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3536471/We-wont-be-railroaded-into-selling-Gers-Craig.html#ixzz1K0whqlEN

Alastair Johnston clarifies Board's position More...