Tom English: Craig Whyte in focus

[ian1964 10,386]

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yet, if he is to be believed, the kiboshing of the deal would have meant that Lloyds Banking Group would have instantly withdrawn Rangersâ??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

[chilledbear 16]

It aint boring being a Rangers Supporter.

[Guest Dutchy]

I do remember that Paul Murray deal coming 'out of the blue' so to speak, especaially after all the publicity about Davic Murray wanting to sell up for some years previously. It seems that Johnston was intent on scuppering any deal with CW and it's hard to know if we would have been any better off in P Murray had succeded.

 

CW may well be a doggy businessman, but he's also a Rangers man and I can't see him destroying Rangers for a quick buck. D Murray gives an entirely diffirent impression, as he's not even a football man. MIM basketball team shows his love for TV revenue, he brought lots of Yank players into the venture as well, on the promise that it was a burgeoning sport.

 

Oh well, business is business. So they say!

[pete 2,494]

I do remember that Paul Murray deal coming 'out of the blue' so to speak, especaially after all the publicity about Davic Murray wanting to sell up for some years previously. It seems that Johnston was intent on scuppering any deal with CW and it's hard to know if we would have been any better off in P Murray had succeded.

 

CW may well be a doggy businessman, but he's also a Rangers man and I can't see him destroying Rangers for a quick buck. D Murray gives an entirely diffirent impression, as he's not even a football man. MIM basketball team shows his love for TV revenue, he brought lots of Yank players into the venture as well, on the promise that it was a burgeoning sport.

 

Oh well, business is business. So they say!

 

I just wrote in another thread I think the old directors were planning on doing the same. They wanted to borrow 25mill to buy out Lloyds and then put the club into admin after losing the tax deal. The only difference I can see is that if we win the tax case CW has said he will cover the 18mill whereas we would have held 25 million debt with the old board. If Whyte does under-write the 18mill is a discussion for the future.

[Guest Dutchy]

The future's bright, the future is red, white and blue.