Twenty questions on Rangers' 21st day of administration . .

[forlanssister 3,060]

THE Rangers crisis is spreading like a political scandal or a grotesque oil spill.

 

It threatens more damage and laps towards new characters almost every day. How many will be taken down by the time the entire, epic drama has played out?

 

For the moment, that can be only guesswork given that Rangers and/or Craig Whyte are being investigated by Strathclyde Police, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Duff & Phelps administrators and an independent SFA inquiry.

 

Everyone is looking for answers â?? truthful ones this time, Mr Whyte â?? but as Rangers begin their 21st day in administration, plenty of questions remain: some old and unresolved, others new and alarming. Here are 20 of the biggest:

 

1 How likely are Rangers to fail completely? This is a business which loses roughly £33,000 a day, £250,000 a week and £1m a month. The administrators have Rangers on a life-support system, pleading for cash. Duff & Phelps claim to be optimistic but for them to acknowledge the "newco" option at all shows that liquidation is very possible.

 

2 Is Whyte a criminal? This character's reputation is in absolute tatters but no-one can accuse him of criminality. There are no criminal charges against him and nor have there ever been. But Strathclyde Police are poring over what's gone on at Rangers and they may ask the Crown Office to seek a conviction over his financial dealings during and since the takeover.

 

3 For all the song and dance Sir David Murray made about selling Rangers only to someone with the club's best interests at heart, why won't he explain how it ended up in Whyte's hands? After six months of "due diligence", was his research so shoddy that it didn't even show Whyte had been banned as a company director for seven years?

 

4 Is it true that Murray and Whyte agreed to a mutual clause that neither would publicly criticise the other? They haven't so far. Why would they both be fearful that the other would have reason to criticise them?

 

5 Does Whyte actually own Rangers? If Duff & Phelps aren't convinced that he put any/enough of his own money into the club, could he be in breach of the undertakings he made at the time of his takeover? Whyte inevitably would challenge such view/decision, of course, and that could mean a long and ugly court case.

 

6 If Whyte's ownership is contested and it's proven not to be legally his, who would own Rangers?

 

7 If he has nothing to hide, as he says, why didn't Whyte's solicitors comply with the SFA's requests for information about whether or not he met their fit and proper person criteria?

 

8 Rangers' company secretary Gary Withey has been accused of obstructing the administrators' attempts to obtain the "missing millions" from the Collyer Bristow client account, ie the balance of the £24.4m Ticketus deal once £18m was used to pay off Lloyds Banking Group. How can Withey defend himself?

 

9 Has Whyte used that account to pay Withey?

 

10 Whyte says he's a Rangers man. He arranged for £24.4m of fans' money to go into that account. So with Rangers on their knees, and the administrators desperate for cash, why did they have to resort to legal action to seize that money?

 

11 Duff & Phelps say that money â?? Rangers' fans money â?? was "progressively being eroded" in the bank account. Who was spending it and on what?

 

12 Three other parties have made a legal claim on it? Who are they and on why do they believe it's their cash?

 

13 How long could Rangers be in administration? All Duff & Phelps have said is that they expect it to be over before the start of the new season on August 4. It depends on the likelihood of getting a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), and that won't happen any time soon.

 

14 Duff & Phelps say the big tax case verdict will "frustrate the process", which, frankly, is an almighty understatement. People do want to buy Rangers but won't they all melt away if it is hit with an apocalyptic tax bill of tens of millions of pounds? The deadline for genuine expressions of interest is March 16 but the tax case verdict won't be known until next month.

 

15 Is Paul Murray the real deal? He's open about having comparatively limited resources and needing to assemble a consortium to save Rangers. The big tax case could scare even him away.

 

16 If they emerge as a "new Rangers" will life soon be the same again? The administrators say those who have shown interest in a takeover have done so "based on a materially reduced cost structure". In a nutshell, cheaper and poorer players from now on.

 

17 Why has Murray gone so quiet?

 

18 Is Campbell Ogilvie complicit in secret payments at Rangers? Former director Hugh Adam accused Rangers of making "off the books" payments to players which were not disclosed to the SFA during the 1990s. Current SFA president Ogilvie was Rangers' company secretary at the time: what did Ogilvie know, and was he involved in decisions which break the rules of the body he now leads?

 

19 Why has Adam â?? a periodically outspoken critic of Murray's regime â?? not made these accusations before?

 

20 Will Whyte ever show his face again at Ibrox? Surely this one can be answered with some confidence. He's finished. The club will be wrestled out of his hands and his hold on Ibrox and Murray Park is unclear. Whyte has become the most reviled figure in Rangers' history. Of that there's no question.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/twenty-questions-on-rangers-21st-day-of-administration.16923666?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Some very pertinent questions in there, but alas we'll probably never be given answers to most of them without a full Judicial enquiry.

[pete 2,499]

Twenty questions on Rangers' 21st day of administration . . .

Michael Grant

Chief football writer

 

THE Rangers crisis is spreading like a political scandal or a grotesque oil spill.

 

It threatens more damage and laps towards new characters almost every day. How many will be taken down by the time the entire, epic drama has played out?

 

For the moment, that can be only guesswork given that Rangers and/or Craig Whyte are being investigated by Strathclyde Police, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Duff & Phelps administrators and an independent SFA inquiry.

 

Everyone is looking for answers â?? truthful ones this time, Mr Whyte â?? but as Rangers begin their 21st day in administration, plenty of questions remain: some old and unresolved, others new and alarming. Here are 20 of the biggest:

 

1 How likely are Rangers to fail completely? This is a business which loses roughly £33,000 a day, £250,000 a week and £1m a month. The administrators have Rangers on a life-support system, pleading for cash. Duff & Phelps claim to be optimistic but for them to acknowledge the "newco" option at all shows that liquidation is very possible.

 

2 Is Whyte a criminal? This character's reputation is in absolute tatters but no-one can accuse him of criminality. There are no criminal charges against him and nor have there ever been. But Strathclyde Police are poring over what's gone on at Rangers and they may ask the Crown Office to seek a conviction over his financial dealings during and since the takeover.

 

3 For all the song and dance Sir David Murray made about selling Rangers only to someone with the club's best interests at heart, why won't he explain how it ended up in Whyte's hands? After six months of "due diligence", was his research so shoddy that it didn't even show Whyte had been banned as a company director for seven years?

 

4 Is it true that Murray and Whyte agreed to a mutual clause that neither would publicly criticise the other? They haven't so far. Why would they both be fearful that the other would have reason to criticise them?

 

5 Does Whyte actually own Rangers? If Duff & Phelps aren't convinced that he put any/enough of his own money into the club, could he be in breach of the undertakings he made at the time of his takeover? Whyte inevitably would challenge such view/decision, of course, and that could mean a long and ugly court case.

 

6 If Whyte's ownership is contested and it's proven not to be legally his, who would own Rangers?

 

7 If he has nothing to hide, as he says, why didn't Whyte's solicitors comply with the SFA's requests for information about whether or not he met their fit and proper person criteria?

 

8 Rangers' company secretary Gary Withey has been accused of obstructing the administrators' attempts to obtain the "missing millions" from the Collyer Bristow client account, ie the balance of the £24.4m Ticketus deal once £18m was used to pay off Lloyds Banking Group. How can Withey defend himself?

 

9 Has Whyte used that account to pay Withey?

 

10 Whyte says he's a Rangers man. He arranged for £24.4m of fans' money to go into that account. So with Rangers on their knees, and the administrators desperate for cash, why did they have to resort to legal action to seize that money?

 

11 Duff & Phelps say that money â?? Rangers' fans money â?? was "progressively being eroded" in the bank account. Who was spending it and on what?

 

12 Three other parties have made a legal claim on it? Who are they and on why do they believe it's their cash?

 

13 How long could Rangers be in administration? All Duff & Phelps have said is that they expect it to be over before the start of the new season on August 4. It depends on the likelihood of getting a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), and that won't happen any time soon.

 

14 Duff & Phelps say the big tax case verdict will "frustrate the process", which, frankly, is an almighty understatement. People do want to buy Rangers but won't they all melt away if it is hit with an apocalyptic tax bill of tens of millions of pounds? The deadline for genuine expressions of interest is March 16 but the tax case verdict won't be known until next month.

 

15 Is Paul Murray the real deal? He's open about having comparatively limited resources and needing to assemble a consortium to save Rangers. The big tax case could scare even him away.

 

16 If they emerge as a "new Rangers" will life soon be the same again? The administrators say those who have shown interest in a takeover have done so "based on a materially reduced cost structure". In a nutshell, cheaper and poorer players from now on.

 

17 Why has Murray gone so quiet?

 

18 Is Campbell Ogilvie complicit in secret payments at Rangers? Former director Hugh Adam accused Rangers of making "off the books" payments to players which were not disclosed to the SFA during the 1990s. Current SFA president Ogilvie was Rangers' company secretary at the time: what did Ogilvie know, and was he involved in decisions which break the rules of the body he now leads?

 

19 Why has Adam â?? a periodically outspoken critic of Murray's regime â?? not made these accusations before?

 

20 Will Whyte ever show his face again at Ibrox? Surely this one can be answered with some confidence. He's finished. The club will be wrestled out of his hands and his hold on Ibrox and Murray Park is unclear. Whyte has become the most reviled figure in Rangers' history. Of that there's no question.

 

Why has the big tax case now been put result been put back to next month? There is certainly a force trying to kill Rangers off I fear.

 

As in question 16 under the new FIFA ruling starting in 2013 all clubs will have to cut their cloth so it may not be bad that we have a head start.

[der Berliner 3,290]

Just to compare this ... how much money are other clubs losing per day? While I am at it, the admins say they want to save 1m a month, not that we are losing 1m a month. If they agree to the proposal of the players, these "losses" should go down quite a bit, so where else could they make any cuts? Ally already works for free, it seems?

 

With regard to the HMRC thing (No. 14) ... the admins told the RSA representatives ...

 

8. Big tax case not a key issue in the sense that liability will be part of the creditors share out - far example, if there is a pot of £20m to share out - each party will get a dividend whether the total liability is say £40 million or £100 million.

 

Well ...

Edited March 5, 2012 by der Berliner