ian1964 10,416 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Published on Saturday 3 December 2011 00:00 FORMER Rangers director Paul Murray has claimed that reservations expressed six months ago about Craig Whyteâ??s takeover of the Ibrox club have now come to pass. At the end of a week when Rangers produced a set of unaudited accounts and Whyte disclosed that he was disqualified from acting as a director for seven years, prompting the SFA to ask the club for clarification over the matter, Murray has raised concerns over the direction of the club. Murrayâ??s views were last night rejected as â??irrelevantâ? by Rangers. But he spoke out after growing increasingly frustrated about talk of the club going into administration. Whyte has admitted that if Rangers lose a tax tribunal to HMRC and face a bill of up to £50m, administration is a possibility. â??I am puzzled that administration is even being discussed, as there is absolutely no need for it,â? Murray told The Scotsman. 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??If Craig Whyte has delivered on the commitments he made in his takeover circular â?? he explicitly promised to invest new money in Rangers, and we have no reason to assume that he has not fulfilled his promises â?? then there should be no cash issues at the moment. â??He has now produced a set of unaudited accounts. Why? What is [accountants] Grant Thorntonâ??s view of Rangers as a going concern? Even last year when we had all the problems with the bank, we had the accounts signed off. In my 25 years in business I have never seen a company like this not have accounts signed off.â? Murray was a member of the independent sub-committee of the Rangers board of directors set up to assess offers. In April, the sub-committee announced it had â??major concernsâ? over Whyteâ??s proposal, and released a statement which expressed disappointment that documents they had reviewed â??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 agreementâ?. An alternative £25m investment proposal was then put forward by a consortium led by non-executive director Murray. But the counter proposal failed, and Murray was removed from the board shortly after Whyte completed his takeover in May. â??Everything we said has come home to roost,â? said Murray last night. â??I donâ??t take any pleasure from that, because my overall view is one of sadness. Talking about administration, being pursued by suppliers, and the possibility of a fit and proper investigation at the SFA â?¦ itâ??s humiliating and embarrassing. â??As a board we spent a lot of time with Craig Whyte ensuring that he knew what the cash flows were. There seemed to be an unwillingness to go into any level of detail of what the cash flow was. I could not believe that he took on an unquantified tax liability. I have never seen anyone do that. Itâ??s like buying a house, finding out it has subsidence, then buying it anyway. â??Mr Whyte indicated during the takeover that he was prepared to meet any tax liability arising from the current case up to a significant level. I am interested to know â?? and all Rangers supporters deserve to know â?? what has changed with the clubâ??s finances since May to bring about the cash pressures we now seem to face, and whether players might have to be sold to make up the shortfall.â? Murray added: â??It is also important to acknowledge and defend the track record of the previous board. â??Craig Whyte has criticised the past regime but in the two years since Sir David Murray stepped down as chairman, we reduced the clubâ??s debts from well over £30m to well under £20m, and the football club won four out of six domestic trophies. â??In addition, the bulk of the current playing squad, one of the strongest in recent times, was assembled at significant cost. â??That is not a bad record, by any measure, and I am pleased to see Ally McCoistâ??s team doing so well in the SPL today. â??I have no personal issue with Craig Whyte, and nor do my former colleagues who stepped down following the takeover and more recently. We just want to see the clubâ??s best interests being served and for Rangers to remain competitive here in Scotland and in Europe. â??We await news of when Rangers will hold their agm, when the shareholders and supporters of Rangers will have the first chance to put questions directly to Craig Whyte. They deserve answers.â? A spokesman for Rangers said: â??What Paul Murray has to say about Rangers is irrelevant and of no consequence, and most Rangers fans will be aware that he was a director when much of the mismanagement that got the club into its current position occurred.â? http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/ex_rangers_director_says_board_s_takeover_fears_are_playing_out_1_1990579 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 "humiliating and embarrassing" are the words indeed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I find it hard to give credibility to someone who was part of the custodianship when this club spiralled out of control. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 "humiliating and embarrassing" are the words indeed. Yes, but Murray should also harbour some of those emotions too given he was part of the previous regime that a) got us into the financial mess we find ourselves and b) was also there when the potential tax liability arose. The previous regime are hardly innocent in all of this. Was the playing squad actually assembled at significant cost or did they get lucky by making 9 mill profit on Hutton and 6 mill profit on Cuellar. Those sales significantly funded the current squad. It isnt really as a result of any great insight, planning or genius from Murray and his cohorts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 “As a board we spent a lot of time with Craig Whyte ensuring that he knew what the cash flows were. There seemed to be an unwillingness to go into any level of detail of what the cash flow was. I could not believe that he took on an unquantified tax liability. I have never seen anyone do that. It’s like buying a house, finding out it has subsidence, then buying it anyway. Why did he try and buy the club at the last minute then?,surely that is the same,no? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 As I inquired somewhere else ... could it just be that these apparent unaudited "advance results" were just being made ahead of the upcoming (?) AGM and are actually being tuned in a fashion to thwart HMRC's case, should they win it? Like ... keeping the damage to Rangers and Whyte at a minimum? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 As I inquired somewhere else ... could it just be that these apparent unaudited "advance results" were just being made ahead of the upcoming (?) AGM and are actually being tuned in a fashion to thwart HMRC's case, should they win it? Like ... keeping the damage to Rangers and Whyte at a minimum? I can't see that being the case dB, but then I'm no expert. Regarding the AGM, I noticed an accountant on another Gers forum pointing out that there has to be an AGM before the end of 2011 (New Year). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 “As a board we spent a lot of time with Craig Whyte ensuring that he knew what the cash flows were. There seemed to be an unwillingness to go into any level of detail of what the cash flow was. I could not believe that he took on an unquantified tax liability. I have never seen anyone do that. It’s like buying a house, finding out it has subsidence, then buying it anyway. Why did he try and buy the club at the last minute then?,surely that is the same,no? Paul Murray (and the others involved in that last minute bid) wanted to buy the club, but leave the tax liability with SDM. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 i find it hard to give credibility to someone who was part of the custodianship when this club spiralled out of control. bingo!!!!!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I find it hard to give credibility to someone who was part of the custodianship when this club spiralled out of control. Doesn't mean his questions are not relevent. If these ex-directors are still shareholders, the AGM[?] should be interesting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.