Commander Green, The FIFA man, and life after the Murray Empire

Good Morning,

A number of years ago I sat and watched while the late David Will, one time chairman of Brechin City, former President of the Scottish Football Association and Vice President of FIFA, peered over the upper rims of his glasses at the assembled board and management of St Johnstone Football Club and proceeded to brand them all as a “shower of thrawn buggers!”.

The reason for the tongue in cheek outburst from Scotland’s highest ranking official from the world of football was the organisation of the centenary dinner celebrating 100 years of the Perth Club— which the club saw fit to hold well outside the centenary year. Will had been invited to speak as a guest at the dinner ( yes Mr Cosgrove I was there ), along with then manager Alex Totten and Craigie Veitch the former sports editor of the Scotsman.

For those who are not familiar with old Scots words, Thrawn can have a couple of meanings which are very similar. If someone is being obstinate, stubborn, uncompromising, perverse or intractable then in auld Scots we say that he or she is being thrawn. Equally, the original meaning has been said to be crooked, twisted, misshapen or deformed. A tree could be thrawn, as could someone’s arm or other part of the body. To be thrawn-leggit was to have a crooked leg.

These meanings then sort of morphed into meanings like difficult or contrary, and so twisted and crooked in that sense, and when David Will called St Johnstone a shower of “thrawn Buggers” he meant that they were being awkward, contrary and perverse in holding a centenary dinner when it wasn’t actually the centenary. He was of course being lighthearted.

That episode came to mind this week when I read the latest statements from Alastair Johnston and Charles Green. Both set out an argument which suits their individual purposes and adopted perspectives, and both perhaps chose to ignore counter argument or salient facts which would obviously derail their logic and train of thought. With the greatest of respect to both men— what a pair of thrawn buggers!!!

In that vein let me recap as to where I think we stand on this September morn in relation to the EBT debate, the question of “Club” and the Independent enquiry into payment outwith contract.

Clearly, all of these issues are closely linked but each stands in its own wee pocket or chapter, and when taken together they serve to make  a whole book or paint an overall scene.

The EBT issue has been repeatedly explained on the RTC blog and elsewhere but at the risk of repeating what is already known the fundamentals are as follows:

Employee Benefits Trusts under certain circumstances are or were a perfectly legal business and accounting tool.

However, in order for the trusts to provide substantial tax advantages, any reward, remuneration or compensation they provide to a beneficiary must not form part of their contract of employment or work package. If this rule is not strictly adhered to, then tax is payable on the sums “given” to the employee, with the employer being liable for tax and national insurance contributions of any employee.

It is alleged by HMRC, that a number of persons who were at one time employed by Rangers PLC have received benefits by way of a specific EBT. Further, the benefits which these employees received were clearly related to their contracts of employment and so these payments are liable to tax, together with interest for late payment and penalties for non-declaration and so on.

This is denied by Rangers PLC and by Murray International Holdings, and MIH have instigated and conducted an appeal against the HMRC view, with that appeal being determined by an independent tax tribunal (The FTT). The basis of their argument appears to be that the benefits received by the beneficiaries were nothing to do with MIH or Rangers and that these payments were purely discretionary and at the instance of the trustees of the trusts concerned– none of whom have any connection with Rangers PLC or MIH. Therefore– there is no tax payable.

Against this there seems to be a plethora of evidence which contradicts this stance including a number of side letters or second contracts which show that any payments to these EBT’s were indeed contractual and part of an overall contract of employment “package”– and if that is deemed to be the case then tax, interest and penalties are indeed, and always were, due.

These contracts or side letters then seem to fly in the face of the documentation lodged with the SPL and later the SFA, as both bodies require sight of all contractual documentation relating to players remuneration and their terms and conditions of employment. Contracts have to be in standard form and lodged with the appropriate bodies to ensure that the player is in fact properly registered to play for the team.

Further, the rules of football prohibit any player being paid by a third party, and so payments made to a player by someone other than his employer is a breach of that rule.

It is this issue that the Nimmo Smith Tribunal is to investigate and rule upon.

For their part, Rangers PLC appear to argue that the existence of EBT’s were always declared in the notes of their accounts, and so the footballing authorities should have known that they were in use at the club. More recently, Alastair Johnston has stated that the club did receive a request for clarification from the SFA in 2011 to which the Rangers PLC board responded disclosing documents ( although he does not specify what documents ) over and above the normal documentation sent re player contracts. Johnston has gone on to state that there was no response or follow up whatsoever from the SFA, and the appropriate UEFA licence simply arrived in the post without further ado. He concludes that as a result of the documentation sent, the SFA must have known at that time that the EBT payments were being used for “player compensation” purposes.

Now, AJ argues that if any misdemeanour or breach of rules has occurred it does not merit the much discussed and publicised “stripping of titles” and that any failure on the part of the Rangers PLC board amounts to no more than an oversight or an administrative error which does not justify the ultimate penalty.

Let’s just pause there and remember who and what AJ actually is in life. Alastair Johnston holds the posts of vice-chairman and member of the board of directors of International Management Group, the leading international sports and entertainment group. Now everyone knows that IMG was formed by Mark McCormack and represents sports stars as their agent. However what is less well known is that the majority of IMG’s work comes from broadcasting – not necessarily mainstream broadcasting – but the broadcasting of certain events to mobile phones and so on and in this context the company works with the likes of Vodafone and other major service providers in the sector. Further the company has the rights to market and broadcast the sports activities of a huge number of schools and colleges in the US as well as music channels, entertainment and so on.

I raise this aspect for one very important reason.

That entire industry is based on one thing and one thing only and that is………… a Licensing system. Broadcasters of any sort obtain the rights to broadcast by way of a licence. They licence content, they licence by area and geographical location, they licence for set time periods,they share licences, sell licences, create licences and terminate licences. Without a licence, they can have all the technology in the world, all the necessary content and so on but they are not able to show it, sell it and profit from it. Proper licensing is vital!

Further, they are very precious about licences- and rightly so– because unless they have the licences tightly tied up, others in the same field can attempt to steal their content, their territory and their rights– all of which are valuable assets.

So go back again and look at all AJ’s comments about proper registration of contracts, about proper administration of documents and licence applications for players, UEFA competition and so against the background of him being a grand fromage in a major company whose absolute lifeblood depends upon proper licensing.

Do you remotely believe that the continual and prolonged inability to properly declare all relevent contracts and player documentation to a licensing body ( both SFA and SPL in this instance) can be merely an oversight or an administrative error?

Further, take a look at the accounts for Rangers PLC at least in the year ended 2005, where it is made very clear that the football management side of the business was working extremely closely with the board in all business and contract matters.

The SFA in particular fulfills a licencing function– a function which is so important that without passing the tests laid down, any club of no matter what size simply cannot play or participate in the sole sphere it is designed to participate and play in. There are strict rules about licences, and a duty on the SFA as well as Rangers PLC to make sure that all of the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to gain a licence have in fact been met. It is not a process that should be left to chance or a process that any major organisation would leave to a junior member of staff or without there being a company defined process and procedure to ensure that the applications and compliance issues are properly dealt with.

Further, if you think about how a footballer player signs for a club– the negotiations, the transfer fee, the personal terms, the contracts, the agents commission and so on, you will realise that a player signing and the terms of his contract – or contracts for that matter – cannot simply come about by accident and outwith the boards knowledge or consent.

In short, it is impossible. It is also impossible, in my respectful opinion, to proceed on a decade long process of administrative errors involving the repeated failure to disclose secondary contracts or side letters. As someone once said to me, there comes a point where a continued and continual series of repeated errors or omissions starts to look suspiciously like a plan!

However, if we were to take AJ’s comments at face value, and accept that there were repeated failures on the part of the Rangers Board by accident, then to be honest there would be every right for shareholders and investors to hold the Directors liable for such negligence. Directors regularly and properly insure themselves against such claims– so I wonder if AJ has paid his insurance premiums?

Further, if he as Chairman presided over such mismanagement, then no doubt his time at IMG is limited as I doubt such  an organisation could afford to have such a dunderheid permanently ensconced in a senior managerial position.

However, AJ appears to be a positively straightforward chap when compared to Mr Green.

He of course is on record as saying that if the proposed CVA were to be rejected and the club forced into liquidation then the club dies, the history dies, and so on and so forth– but of course that was yesterday or the week before or even the week or months before that. That was the message that Mr Green wanted to convey at that time in the hope that HMRC would buckle down and accept the proposals.

Now, Mr Green seeks to sing a different tune, and recently latched on to Lord Nimmo Smith’s comments about the “club” being a continuing entity and capable of transfer from one owner to the next. He muses that if that is the case then the “club” may well in fact still be a member of the SPL and the SFA  as no matter what happened to Rangers PLC, Rangers FC are ” a continuing entity” and therefore should not be forced to apply to rejoin any body which it was always a member of– such as the SPL and the SFA. Of course this then means that all the history and so on remains– despite what he himself said earlier!

Now of course, Charles makes for a good soundbite and is mad keen to ensure that as many Rangers fans as possible take up shares in “the club” when he offers them for sale.

Yet there is the problem,– shares in what are being offered for sale? According to Charles– and following his logic— he can offer as many shares in the Rangers Football Club Ltd for sale as he wants — but that company will not actually be Rangers FC– will it? If Rangers PLC was not actually Rangers FC– then what was it that David Murray was offering for sale all those years ago? Or could it be that Charles has just got it plain wrong?

You see for some reason he did not quote Lord Nimmo Smith in full– especially that part where the learned judge gave a brief description of his interpretation of the law of clubs.

For example Charles chooses not to comment on this sentence from the learned judge:

“This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator.   We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.   So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself.   But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator.”

Earlier, Nimmo Smith said this:

“While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”

So let’s pause there.

A club is an undertaking— in other words any type of loose arrangement involving a group of people with a common purpose. If a club is not an incorporated club ( a limited company ) then to be anything other than a loose idea of a few folk getting together for a common purpose such as a holiday or a meal or to read a book or anything else– then of course it should have a formal constitution and a set of rules for its members.

So– where is the constitution for Rangers Football Club? Where are its rules of admission which says who can join? Are there certain rules that preclude you from joining? Is there a set limit on how many members there can be at any one time? Who are the officers of this club?

At the current time, Mr Green seems to be very keen on everything British and everything of a loyal and royal nature. So here is a quote from the pages of the Royal Yachting Association of Great Britain on the legal status of unincorporated clubs and so on.

“Since an unincorporated club has no legal status, it is incapable itself of owning property or being party to a contract. It is therefore standard practice to appoint trustees, who are usually required in the rules to comply with committee instructions, to hold the property (whether freehold land and buildings, yachts or a long leasehold of a reservoir) on behalf of the club members.”

Eh going by that statement – Rangers FC never owned Ibrox or Murray Park– and indeed can never own Ibrox and Murray Park. Someone had to be the trustee.

Further, it can never have been granted a licence to play football— you can’t grant a right to a non legal entity or to a body which has no legal status. You cannot accept a licensing application from a body which has no legal status. You cannot be employed by a body with no legal status.

Rangers FC has no constitution, no legal persona, is not allowed to own property ( heritable, moveable or intellectual), can’t enter into contracts and so on.

In short, Rangers FC is a body with no legal status– it does not exist and has never existed— unless it is to be found within the confines of Rangers PLC which everyone now recognises is in Administration and will soon be liquidated.

Still don’t believe me?

Ok here is a recent release by the Scottish legal commission setting out changes that they want to make to the law so that “clubs” can gain some legal status:

“In Scotland, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom, unincorporated associations are not recognised as entities separate from their members. Consequently, such organisations cannot carry out acts such as entering into contracts, owning property or engaging employees. The lack of legal personality can also give rise to unfortunate, and perhaps unforeseen, repercussions for members. For example, it is possible that, under the current law, a member of an unincorporated association could, by virtue of that membership alone, find himself or herself personally liable in delict to a third party injured at an event organised by the association. Further difficulties relating to this area of the law are set out in our Discussion Paper on Unincorporated Associations (DP 140) which was published at the end of 2008.

Our Report recommends a simple regime, with the minimum of administrative burdens, to ensure that associations and clubs are recognised as legal entities. Separate legal personality will be accorded to associations which satisfy certain conditions. The main conditions are that the association has at least two members; that its objects do not include making a profit for its members; and that it has a constitution containing certain minimum specified provisions. These provisions are: the association’s name; its purpose; membership criteria; the procedure for the election or appointment of those managing it; the powers and duties of its office-bearers; the rules for distributing its assets if it is dissolved; and the procedure for amending its constitution. Many associations will already have constitutions which contain these provisions but, for those which do not, we anticipate that style constitutions will be made available, free of charge, on the websites of organisations such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations”

Maybe Charles should seek some advice from the Scottish Council on Voluntary organisations? And perhaps he should note that part about not making a profit for members too!

Then again, as Lord Nimmo Smith has said the actual status of a club and who or what a club is depends on individual circumstances. So with regard to Rangers, let’s look at who would know– for example, who did Charles get “Rangers” from? Duff and Phelps of course — so what do they say?

Well they have stuck to their guns because in each and every report that they have issued to the court, the shareholders and the creditors they have included the following definition:

Rangers / the Company / the Club The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276);

Now that doesn’t really help Charles does it.

Ok so, lets ignore Craig Whyte because everyone knows that he was a diddy— let’s go to folk that are far more sensible– how about the Board of Rangers PLC before Craig Whyte– what did they have to say:

Well, here is a statement from May 2011 which seems to set out who and what the then Directors thought amounted to the club– and let’s face it– they should know!

“Further to today’s statement from Wavetower Limited (“the acquirer”), the Independent Board Committee of The Rangers Football Club plc (“the club”), comprising Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain, John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre, (”IBC”) would like to make the following statement:

“In recent weeks the IBC has been engaged with the acquirer and has secured an enhanced financial commitment from Wavetower for future investment into the club. The decision on the sale and purchase of the majority shareholding in the club firmly and ultimately rests between Murray MHL Limited (“MHL”) and Lloyds Banking Group (“LBG”).

“Although the IBC has no power to block the transaction, following its enquiries, the IBC and Wavetower have differing views on the future revenue generation and cash requirements of the club and the IBC is concerned about a lack of clarity on how future cash requirements would be met, particularly any liability arising from the outstanding HMRC case.

“Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the club for £1 and the club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower. This share transaction would ordinarily trigger a requirement on Wavetower under Rule Nine of The Takeover Code for a mandatory offer to be made to the other shareholders.

“Given this transaction structure and following discussions with the Takeover Panel, the IBC considers there to be no purpose in the acquirer making such an offer to acquire all other shareholdings at effectively nil value per share. Accordingly the IBC has agreed that the offer period for the club will now end.

“In agreeing that no offer should be made to all shareholders the IBC has insisted that the acquirer issues a document to all shareholders setting out the full terms of the transaction, comprehensive details on the acquirer and the sources of its funding and giving firm commitments to agreed future investment in the club.

“The IBC is committed to ensure that the transaction and future investment and funding proposals should be transparent to all the shareholders and supporters of the club”

Ah— that doesn’t really help Charles Green’s current argument either does it?

So here we are, on the cusp of the FTT ruling, with a share offering in the offing, and SPL enquiry scheduled for November and no doubt Mark Daly and the Panorama team beavering away in the background getting ready for another documentary.

The decision of the FTT may reveal yet more of what the bold AJ describes as “Administrative errors” by way of failing to administer EBT’s properly so resulting in  a massive tax bill, and the SPL enquiry may reveal further “Administrative errors” in failing to properly record player contracts for a decade, with the result that players were never properly registered in the first place and so were illegal players during championship winning games.

Yet all that is history and in the past.

Today’s Rangers has a new hero, a new commander– even though who he works for is a closely guarded secret and remains a mystery to most of us who may be interested to find out who Charles Green really is and who he represents. He seems to attack certain quarters then retreat, antagonise and appease, and has a habit of constantly contradicting himself when it suits.

In the interim he reminds me of the most famous creation of the American writer Timothy Zahn who brought about a revival in the fortunes of the Star Wars franchise, bringing it widespread attention for the first time in years. He did this by creating a new villain to follow in the footsteps of the administratively challenged and ultimately vanquished Darth Vader.

Zahn describes this new villain’s command style as considerably different from that of Darth Vader  and other typical Imperial commanders; instead of punishing failure and dissent, he promotes creativity among his crew and accepts ideas from subordinates. He is a tactical genius who has made extensive study of military intelligence and art, and is willing to retreat instead of making a stand in a losing battle.

His full name and his true origins are only known to a few select individuals of the Empire and the New Republic.

To quote Wikipedia:

“His name is ………… reminiscent of the old Scots word meaning Twisted ot Crooked.

The character’s name is……….. Thrawn.

I suspect that we are about to see some pretty Thrawn statements from a shower of Thrawn buggers as the late David Will would have said!

1,508 thoughts on “Commander Green, The FIFA man, and life after the Murray Empire


  1. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 13:45

    Absolute garbage.
    ===========================
    Well, that’s the voice of reason for you. Two words and no argument, no explanation, that’s it. That might do it on FF or RM, but it doesn’t do it here. Pathetic. And that’s one word to answer your two.


  2. Michael Scott Mcgill,this guy seems to escape scrutiny despite being involved with murray for what appears to be decades.anyway,

    This guy is linked to a lot of shelf companies along with this guy Mr David William Murray Horne (DM?).

    MMG SHELF 1 LIMITED Appointment Date: 14/11/2007
    MMG SHELF 5 LIMITED Appointment Date: 18/12/2007
    MMG SHELF 4 LIMITED Appointment Date: 18/12/2007
    MMG SHELF 9 LIMITED Appointment Date: 18/12/2007
    MMG SHELF 6 LIMITED Appointment Date: 18/12/2007
    MMG SHELF 7 LIMITED Appointment Date: 18/12/2007
    MMG SHELF 2 LIMITED Appointment Date: 03/01/2008
    MMG SHELF 3 LIMITED Appointment Date: 03/01/2008

    All the above are now dissolved,perhaps the thing to note is the dates,seem to be around the return of walter smith and his mad spending.Will try to look in-depth later.

    Another 1 of interest is this MMG SHELF 8 LIMITED Appointment Date: 03/01/2008,it’ still active,having looked it appears to be a vehicle for moving money.£437.000 to £0 within a year and no other movement before or after. You have to wonder if the above companies operated in the same way.


  3. Agrajag says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 13:50

    Lord Wobbly says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 13:33

    =======================

    Amazing, the truth from the mainstream.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19786824

    The old Rangers Football Club owed more than £94m in unpaid tax and penalties, according to its administrators.

    After HMRC rejected proposals for a creditors agreement that would have allowed the old club to continue, Duff and Phelps negotiated a sale of assets to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.

    He has since formed a new club which is playing in the Scottish Football League Third Division.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The BBC are clearly not intent on being invited to the next Ibrox press conference either….


  4. neepheid says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 13:46

    The Ticketus deal was clearly negotiated while the saintly “Sir” David Murray owned the club. That deal could not have gone through without his personal involvement. And, no, I haven’t any documentary evidence, but it is perfectly clear from the timeline. Anyone who disagrees, just tell me how it could have been done without his involvement.

    ==============================

    Craig Whyte agrees to sell the season tickets to Ticketus if he takes control of the club.

    Ticketus place the money into an escrow account, to be released if he gets control of the club.

    Craig Whyte buys David Murrays shares, giving him control of the club.

    The money is released to Craig Whyte / Lloyds as he has fulfilled the requirement to get control of the club. Ticketus believe that they now have the rights to those season tickets whatever happens. They expect to make a large profit from this, in addition to the tax breaks their investors will receive.

    Lloyds agree to this as it is the best way they have of getting their money back. They were making the decisions at that time, not David Murray. They had effective control of both Rangers and MIH. David Murray was a non-entity by that time.

    That is how it could have been done without his involvement.


  5. Yesterday’s Final Report made for grim reading for creditors money wasted. Perhaps the main news was a pending application to Court to appoint liquidators – and that instigated by [as they point out the overwhelming percentage creditor] HRMC. It’s only an application mind but indicates patience worn thin by delays and push backs.

    But behind all that,

    After over 6 months of Administration and [3000 hours @ av 380 p/h] 3m plus and another 2m plus in legal fees – [what’s that alone? – getting on a million quid a month?]

    Unbelievably – We are still no wiser what exactly happened to cause this mess and upheaval to Scottish Football and massive taxpayer loss. We don’t even know the details of some Secured Creditors [TBC], or the real status of Ticketus [or their mystery backers], or certain assets and we don’t even know how the take-over transaction was conducted save it’s under criminal investigation. We don’t know the `mystery` backers of Sevco, and essentially a sale based on a “confidential letter”. We don’t know the details of the 5-way agreement.

    We don’t even know when the SFA may issue a Statement, never mind what it may contain.

    Very odd for a million a month


  6. Long Time Lurker says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 11:09
    =================================

    LTL – it gets more interesting if you drop the Brentwood Estates (a dissolved company with a similar name to others with no listed directors – you know the drill.)

    A search of Manchester Property Management Limited leads you to one Muhammad Saddique.
    Try that.

    Insomniac.


  7. neepheid says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 11:30
    ‘….It just encapsulated every Glasgow preconception about teuchters, who were deemed to start about 10 miles from the Tolbooth, as I remember!.’

    — No, no, DP. Less than a mile from the Tolbooth, at the ‘hielanman’s umbrella’, surely? 🙂


  8. Another pointer towards Minty’s paws being over this whole affair has been the involvement of his pet spin doctors, MediaHouse from the very start.
    Even to the extent of one of the top MH placemen, Ramsay Smith, being afforded a place in the Ibrox directors’ box.
    Since Duff & Phelps were appointed, they have paid MediaHouse £112,000. For work on behalf of a firm in administration. A firm that already has its own in-house Press Officers and media team. Not one of whom was laid off.
    A fair deal for creditors?
    Another bunch of spin doctors who are very close and chummy with MediaHouse were given the job of chaperoning Craig Whyte and intimidating or cajoling the Scottish Press into ignoring the chancer’s past – or printing laughable lies about it.
    Even when presented with evidence of Whyte’s history and actions, the Scottish Press refused to print it. In fact, on occasions they even cooperated with the spin doctors to suppress the unwelcome facts.
    Now, ask yourself this, in the history of craven Scottish journalism, who has had the clout to dictate to the MSM what they should print and when they should (or shouldn’t) print it?
    As the recent inane witterings of Traynor in the Record show clearly, that man was, and still is, Murray.
    So who have MediaHouse and their pals been working for from day one of the original RFC PLC “fakeover”? And why?
    It’s join the dots time . . .


  9. Oh and with regard when Mr Green got involved.

    He himself let it slip just after it was announced that HMRC blocked the CVA that he had been involved for quite some time.

    He said something along the lines of ” if they were always going to reject the CVA as a matter of policy then why did they not tell us back in February.

    There is a scam, it has been set up, but any evidence I have seen suggests that it centres around Duff and Phelps, their involvement with Craig Whyte, and the onward sale to Charles Green. Craig Whyte even spoke to Duff and Phelps long before the actual events took place, discussing the administration and how it could be dealt with. He fought desperately to get them in as administrator, after they had worked with him in getting control of the club in the first place.

    It was designed to take a football club deeply and irrevocably in debt, get rid of all or most of that debt, create a new club (with the illusion of being the old one) and continuing to play in the top league in Scotland.

    People can focus elsewhere if they want, but to me that is the real story. That and how the media in Scotland, and the footballing authorities tried to support it.


  10. Agrajag says:

    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:02

    Lloyds agree to this as it is the best way they have of getting their money back. They were making the decisions at that time, not David Murray. They had effective control of both Rangers and MIH. David Murray was a non-entity by that time.

    That is how it could have been done without his involvement.
    ————————————————————————————————–
    I agree with your analysis of David Murray re who was really calling the shots. However SDM is the one who invited CW to the party. What happened after that, time,guilty concience or criminal investigation may be the only way we find out.

    However as friend of mine said to me when the ballon went up over a year ago with Mark Daly piece,SDM would know who he was dealing with.

    “David Murray is the type of businessman who knows the colour of his associates underpants. He probably knows the last time they were changed aswell!”

    SDM being complicit would be hard to prove. Being willfuly ignorant or having plausable deniability quite another.

    “I was duped” went the cry!


  11. neepheid says:

    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 08:54

    jmaclure says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 08:14

    Rangers have zero tolerance of all forms of sectarianism, they are in constant touch with their support regarding this and are still working hard behind the scemes with initiatives.
    ================================
    So THAT’s what Green’s little tour of Northern Ireland was all about! Thanks for clearing that up for me. Having read the report of what went on there, there was me thinking that he was playing the good old orange card with a view to extracting yet more cash from the supporters. Silly me! It was actually an anti-sectarian initiative!
    ———————————————————————————————————————————

    I am against any orange strip, it would be a silly mistake and I do hope Green thinks better of it.
    He says a lot of things, Charlie, too many for my liking, he has a lot of convincing to do.

    But the Northen Ireland point is lost on me, why should he not go, there is support there?.

    Just as Celtic court their support in Southern Ireland?

    Do you think everybody in Ireland is therefore sectarian?


  12. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 13:45

    Absolute garbage.
    ——
    What is? Not a word of speculation or mistruth in there. Don’t be a dick.


  13. So when does a business become insolvent, is it simply when your debts exceed your asset value, and the cash flow becomes a problem?

    If so who valuates your assets, who will lend you money for cash flow against your assets?

    Who will continue to lend you money if you fail to meet your repayment schedule?

    Who are the accountants that signs of the books?

    Now lets suggest you have a company who has a huge customer base, what are they really valued at, I.E Google or Facebook, of course they have data centers and whatever (physical assets), but is that why they are valued so highly?

    If you stripped down both these companies it is really only their genuine customer base that has any value, hence Facebook’s flotation flop.

    So Rangers do have value, they have a large customer base and a loyal support, they have their own assets (though that may be dubious) and history, though you guys might debate that. However at the end of the day you cannot deny that we exist. If you doubt what I say tune in to the cup draw!


  14. chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:21

    ============================

    Malcolm Cohen will be leading the investigation into what happened and who was responsible.

    In my opinion David Murray knew exactly who he was dealing with, but quite frankly it didn’t make any difference. Lloyds could see a way of getting their £18m back. Nothing else mattered. They were making the decisions, both in relation to Rangers and MIH.

    Alistair Johnston even said it on TV. Lloyds called and said get the deal done, or your facilities will be withdrawn. Now he may have been lying, but it does make sense. In any case it really wasn’t down to the board (the independent panel was a joke) it was down to MIH and David Murray.


  15. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:28

    ==============================

    You do exist, as a new club.

    If you disagree have a look at the administrators report. Rangers still exists, it just isn’t playing football in Scotland any more. In fact it’s not doing anything, but it does still exist. Your new club is playing football, it’s in the SFL division 3.


  16. Danish Pastry says:

    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 11:10

    jmaclure says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 08:14
    4 21 Rate This
    —————————————–

    A lot of what you say, I actually agree with.


  17. easternexpat says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:00

    The BBC are clearly not intent on being invited to the next Ibrox press conference either….
    ——
    It seems that they’ve been given reason to stop pussyfooting around the issue. “A new club” sounds like a deliberate use of words to me. 🙂

    Meanwhile. Davis58 – Scofish factory in Fraserburgh. Why don’t you phone them up and ask them why they have to have two colours of hairnet on a Wednesday, when their usual policy is to change the colour every day to make sure employees have a clean one on (Wednesday is “green” hairnet day)?


  18. jmaclure says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:27

    But the Northen Ireland point is lost on me, why should he not go, there is support there?.
    =====================
    The report on Green’s visit to NI, produced by a Rangers Supporters source who was with him, has been posted here at least twice. Have you read that report? Are you comfortable with the contents?


  19. So Rangers do have value, they have a large customer base and a loyal support, they have their own assets (though that may be dubious) and history, though you guys might debate that. However at the end of the day you cannot deny that we exist. If you doubt what I say tune in to the cup draw!

    ————————————————————————-

    davis58, of course you exist as do Elvis impersonators, some are very good. They sing all his songs and some are that successful they perform in Vegas. They look like him, move like him and sing like him and have a lot of old Elvis fans, but they cannot claim his hits as they are not him because, you see, he died.

    Now if they decide to branch out and compose a few songs in an Elvis style and get themselves a few hits then fair play to them. They will create their own history but it won’t be added to the real Elvis history.


  20. Agrajag says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:02

    Craig Whyte agrees to sell the season tickets to Ticketus if he takes control of the club.

    Ticketus place the money into an escrow account, to be released if he gets control of the club.

    Craig Whyte buys David Murrays shares, giving him control of the club.

    The money is released to Craig Whyte / Lloyds as he has fulfilled the requirement to get control of the club. Ticketus believe that they now have the rights to those season tickets whatever happens. They expect to make a large profit from this, in addition to the tax breaks their investors will receive.

    Lloyds agree to this as it is the best way they have of getting their money back. They were making the decisions at that time, not David Murray. They had effective control of both Rangers and MIH. David Murray was a non-entity by that time.

    That is how it could have been done without his involvement.
    ================
    The sale to Whyte by Murray was conditional on Lloyds being paid off. Whyte paying off Lloyds was conditional on the Ticketus deal. The Ticketus deal was conditional on the sale going through. So to my way of thinking, Murray, Whyte, Ticketus and Lloyds must all have been aware of all aspects of the sale, since it was essential that various transactions went through simultaneously, and all were interlinked. In my view, Murray must have been involved, I simply don’t believe that the Ticketus deal could have gone through behind his back. No evidence, of course, but it seems common sense to me. Plus Murray is anything but a “hands off” type of owner. He wanted the bank off his back at just about any price, because he wanted to run the show again. In my opinion. Who is REALLY running the show now? Not Green, that’s for sure.


  21. wolvibhoy says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:07

    I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, too them he is, At the end of the day if I believe that Rangers are still Rangers playing at Ibrox in the same strip and with 5 stars (History), then they are Rangers to me! What you consider them to be is of absolutely no interest to me.


  22. Agrajag says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:02

    ==============================

    Craig Whyte agrees to sell the season tickets to Ticketus if he takes control of the club.

    Ticketus place the money into an escrow account, to be released if he gets control of the club.

    Craig Whyte buys David Murrays shares, giving him control of the club.

    The money is released to Craig Whyte / Lloyds as he has fulfilled the requirement to get control of the club. Ticketus believe that they now have the rights to those season tickets whatever happens. They expect to make a large profit from this, in addition to the tax breaks their investors will receive.

    Lloyds agree to this as it is the best way they have of getting their money back. They were making the decisions at that time, not David Murray. They had effective control of both Rangers and MIH. David Murray was a non-entity by that time.

    That is how it could have been done without his involvement.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    But it still doesn’t explain why Ticketus were happy to advance such a large amount of money to a company that was losing £1M a month (at least). Their due diligence would have uncovered this and the Big and Wee Tax case disputes but they still went ahead and took the gamble. I suppose they believed they had some security over Ibrox with the FC over Wavetower shares but again taking a charge over shares is daft – it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen the shareholders empty the company of the properties and leave the banks high and dry.

    In short – I suspect the Ticketus investors had another reason for investing as well as trying to get tax relief and a return on their capital.

    Also – I’m not convinced that the Escrow account controlled by Withey had the money in it at the time he said it did.


  23. Robert Coyle says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:00

    Another 1 of interest is this MMG SHELF 8 LIMITED Appointment Date: 03/01/2008,it’ still active,having looked it appears to be a vehicle for moving money.£437.000 to £0 within a year and no other movement before or after. You have to wonder if the above companies operated in the same way.

    ———————–

    MMG SHELF 8 LIMITED used to be APOLLO METALS (U.K.) LIMITED.

    20th November 2007:
    “RANGERS chairman David Murray’s firm yesterday agreed to sell Apollo Metals to a German company.
    ThyssenKrupp Services will pay Murray International Holdings an undisclosed sum.
    Graeme Hill, chief executive of Murray Metals Group, said proceeds from the sale would be used for expansion and further investment.”

    I wouldn’t think there was much in it … fire away though 😉


  24. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:31

    angus1983 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 14:40

    Meanwhile. Davis58 – Scofish factory in Fraserburgh. Why don’t you phone them up and ask them why they have to have two colours of hairnet on a Wednesday, when their usual policy is to change the colour every day to make sure employees have a clean one on (Wednesday is “green” hairnet day)?

    =====================================================

    What in Fraserburgh they are not sheep, I thought you could not see a Gers shirt in the north east? So when Fraserburgh play what songs do their fans sing? Or do they one half each?
    ——
    Unfortuantely, FR seems to be a stronghold of RFC(dead) fans. There are several cars here with RFC on the numberplate.

    I’m sure you’ll be beter placed than me to find out what songs FR fans sing, as you’ll more than likely have to face them in one of the early rounds of a cup competition soon.

    ——
    I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, to them he is.
    ——
    See that knitted monkey on the telly? He’s way more sensible than you. Do you not understand that even if a million folk point and go “Aye, that’s Elvis over there” then they are still wrong?

    Really, don’t you?


  25. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24

    wolvibhoy says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:07

    I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, too them he is, At the end of the day if I believe that Rangers are still Rangers playing at Ibrox in the same strip and with 5 stars (History), then they are Rangers to me! What you consider them to be is of absolutely no interest to me.
    ===============

    Up there with the tooth fairy and Santa. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it real. Does it make it real if a suicide bomber believes he is going to get his 72 virgins?

    This attitude is perfect example of what the problem is here. The refusal of fans to believe what has happened to their club is what exasperates most of us in the rest of Scotland. However for the sake of a bit of peace then you can believe whatever you want. If you want to continue to support the tribute act because, in your eyes, the spirit of the club still exists then fine. The rest of us will believe in the truth.

    Oh and even Elvis fans know that he is dead. I’ve yet to hear of any who think that the guy up on stage is the real thing, no matter how stupid they are.

    The sooner that the fans of RFC come to grips with this the better. It won’t go away, no matter how hard you and the media try to make it disappear. The club founded on Glasgow Green is gone no matter how much the replica looks like it. Embrace this and move on.


  26. Apologies for getting hooked in by the troll, folks. 🙂


  27. davis58…

    you are becoming very tiresome and are embarrassing yourself…

    try a period of reflection as you appear to have lost your way…or alternatively you could just
    p*** off!


  28. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:15

    … do you consider singing songs about the Ibrox Disaster and Ian Durrant’s injury makes you some kind of authority on decency, be cause it doesn’t dick!
    ——

    TSFM – any fear of just banning this idiot?


  29. forweonlyknow says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:35

    MMG SHELF 8 LIMITED used to be APOLLO METALS (U.K.) LIMITED.

    20th November 2007:
    “RANGERS chairman David Murray’s firm yesterday agreed to sell Apollo Metals to a German company.
    ThyssenKrupp Services will pay Murray International Holdings an undisclosed sum.
    Graeme Hill, chief executive of Murray Metals Group, said proceeds from the sale would be used for expansion and further investment.”

    I wouldn’t think there was much in it … fire away though
    —————————————-
    “Agreed to sell”..So was it sold?..Also begs the question why these 2 (Mr Michael Scott McGill 03-01-2008…..Mr David William Murray Horne 03-01-2008) are still listed as directors and their appointments were made after it was supposedly sold off.


  30. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24

    At the end of the day if I believe that Rangers are still Rangers playing at Ibrox in the same strip and with 5 stars (History), then they are Rangers to me! What you consider them to be is of absolutely no interest to me.

    =========================================================================
    You believe Rangers have continued as a ‘club’ while most on here believe in a legal and corporate sense they are well deid.

    If that’s what you believe then fine but if you are not interested in what others think then can we just leave it at that?

    Can you perhaps get back to the point I raised with you a few days back but I am still waiting on an answer.

    Just spend 5 minutes telling us, based on all the information you have to date, what the future for Rangers holds and how this will be financed and managed. In other words your view as to how things will pan out over the next three to five years.

    As someone said the other day, being we are told by the MSM that the future of Scottish Football depends on a fit and strong Rangers. What can you say to fans of other clubs that will convince us that it will not all go down the pan again and take the rest of us with you?

    The subject of the future of Scottish Football is surely of interest to Rangers fans and those of other clubs alike.


  31. Surprise, response from Mark Daley – Duff and Duffer (copyright acknowledged) have not (to date) followed up on their earlier statement to the press to contest the allegations made by the BBC concerning the administrator’s awareness of the Ticketus deal.

    czm ‏@czm3
    @markdaly2 Have Duff&Phelps or their solicitors moved to seek re-dress from the BBC re allegiations made on knowledge of Ticketus deal?

    59m Mark Daly ‏@markdaly2
    @czm3 not so far, no


  32. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24
    0 14 i
    Rate This
    wolvibhoy says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:07

    I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, too them he is, At the end of the day if I believe that Rangers are still Rangers playing at Ibrox in the same strip and with 5 stars (History), then they are Rangers to me! What you consider them to be is of absolutely no interest to me.

    ——————————————————————————
    This may be of interest to you.

    http://theflatearthsociety.org/


  33. neepheid says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:19

    =============================

    Murray had to be involved, because he was selling his shares.

    However he did not have to be involved in the Ticketus aspect and somehow give his permission for it. Why would he, or more importantly Lloyds even care where the money was coming from, so long as the £18m debt was paid off.

    They may well have known, but ultimately it didn’t matter and certainly didn’t need his permission. It was a deal between Ticketus and Whyte, conditional on Whyte getting control of Rangers. It suited everyone, other than the club and fans but no-one actually cared, including the fans bizarrely. They seemed to think Whyte was a messianic figure.

    As to Ticketus, that was the point of using the escrow account. If the conditions weren’t met then they simply got their money back.

    With regard the business losing money, and even going bust. Ticketus thought that their tickets survived any insolvency. So long as Ibrox existed and someone was playing football there then they owned the tickets which were sold to watch that football. They argued this in the Court of Session and were told that under Scots law, and in particular rights over property, they were wrong.


  34. tomtomaswell says:

    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:50

    The sooner that the fans of RFC come to grips with this the better. It won’t go away, no matter how hard you and the media try to make it disappear. The club founded on Glasgow Green is gone no matter how much the replica looks like it. Embrace this and move on.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Sorry do not agree. Too many(good) people care about Rangers. It has’nt died for them and for me.

    I will be going back after an absence of many years because, my club, not Charles Green, just my club needs me. Many have, as well, that is why even in the Third Division the pull is remarkable.

    The great memories I have had in following this club will never die , no matter how many people preach at me on this blog.

    That is just the way I feel.


  35. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24

    I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, too them he is.

    ===========================

    lol genius.

    If all of the fans turn up and agree that someone else is Elvis then he is Elvis.

    Superb logic.


  36. forweonlyknow says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:35
    ———————–
    soz posted to early…..also the accounts for 2008 show no sale but a change of name only.


  37. jmaclure says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 16:04

    And good on you. Thats what being a fan is all about.

    However same question to you as Davis 58.

    Based on all the information you have to date, what does the future for Rangers holds and how this will be financed and managed. In other words your view as to how things will pan out over the next three to five years?

    How confident are you that your past memories and those you are enjoying at this time won’t be the last you have?


  38. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24
    0 17 Rate This
    wolvibhoy says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:07

    I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, too them he is, At the end of the day if I believe that Rangers are still Rangers playing at Ibrox in the same strip and with 5 stars (History), then they are Rangers to me! What you consider them to be is of absolutely no interest to me.

    ======================================================

    your inability to grasp the current situation says more about your mental capacity than it does about the Norwegian blue predicament and the quality of analogy forwarded to help you understand

    If you really believe that an Elvis impersonator is indeed Elvis and that TRFC are really RFC, then you do indeed deserve to be shafted by Charles Green

    Do me a favour though, when it all goes wrong, please don’t claim it was a timmy conspiracy and please don’t unleash a wave of violence and protest against the rest of the game. Please just accept that others, who can’t feckin stand your club, it’s dubious “culture and traditions” and what it has done to the game in this country, tried to warn you.

    YOU WILL HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME THIS TIME (much like the last time btw)

    TSFM – you’ve have given Davis and Maclure plenty of chances, i really fail to see them taking any argument forward, the are just regurgitating the same old arguments that have been shot down a million times in the past. It’s not that they DON’T understand, they just don’t WANT to understand and accept – and therefore they are being nothing more than a diversion. And it’s getting weary seeing the same old pi5h night after night. Time to put them on the naughty step for the sake of the blog.


  39. Do not ban davis58. Educate him.

    Davis58, take a thin block of wood, hammer a 12″ nail through it then place it on a sofa, pointy nail side up.

    Meditate while staring at it. Tell yourself it is not a nail. Convince yourself that it is in fact, a delicious, creamed fondant. Take as long as you need until, through transcendantal meditation, you are utterly certain that it is not a nail, but a tasty piece of confectionary.

    Then sit on it.

    Let us know how you get on.


  40. davis58 says:
    I thought who left the blog for good yesterday, are you back as a newco?
    I was one of the ‘ones’ who supposedly jumped on you last week over the contents of one of your posts, we were asked to give you a chance to contribute, but you have not changed.
    Glad I sussed you from the start, if you have something positive to post then great, if not then I hope you ‘walk away’. There are many great and knowledgeable posters on here doing a great job in carrying forward TSFM blog from the RTC days, they do not need the distraction.


  41. Davis – don’t want to break the news to you but that fat bloke in a red suit and white beard sitting in Jenners ever December is not really Santa. You’ll thank me one day 🙂


  42. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 16:12
    ———————————————————————-

    Just a diversion, am I, well that is a huge step forward I suppose.

    How will we survive, by spending less than we take in, that is how.

    Other than that thanks to your aggressive stance, I won’t respond from my naughty step, if that is all right by you.

    I think I”ll take a few days off from this blog and re evaluate whether I really want to play a part.

    Thank you.,


  43. davis58
    Half the lies you are telling yourself are just not true ,as for the other half .


  44. Agrajag at 16.03:
    You’re working awfy hard here to convince us Murray was not/is not involved. Why?
    Once again:
    Murray: Co-owner of GM Mining, based in Bellshill.
    Whyte: Owner of an infamous plant hire firm based in Bellshill.
    Murray: Owner of Murray Metals, steel stockholders.
    Whyte: Son-in-law of the owner of the Martins of Dundyvan steel mill in Coatbridge (and founders of the local lodge).

    Duped? Murray? Ha!


  45. timtim says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 12:33

    I can only provide vague speculation to advance your curiosity concerning links between Ellis and Green. I remember reading some time back on RTC about a company invloved in stadium construction in the North of England that went bust. I think Ellis may have been involved. Whether Green was in there somewhere would not have been scrutinised at that time since he wasn’t yet a player at that time.


  46. Interesting to see that the background to Duff & Duffers Final Progress Report to Creditors is a cell being locked. Irony at its finest. (it’s probably a safe but lets not be pedantic)

    Interesting also is that Ibrox Stadium is described as “The Clubs stadium and freehold property” and Murray Park as “The Clubs training ground and freehold property”. How does that work when, according to Sevco doctrine, the “club” and “operating/owning companies” are separate entities and the “club” is described by LNS as having no legal status and is incapable of owning anything? Or is this new arrangement only applicable post administration?

    Could it be, as I have commented elsewhere, a load of made up pish to appease the more radical element of the former Rangers FC support? (Rhetorical)

    Finally, RFC Group is described as “the Company’s former majority shareholder and assignee of the Banks qualifying floating charge security registered at Companies House”

    Does this mean that RFC Group is the former majority shareholder and former assignee, or the former majority shareholder and the CURRENT assignee?

    Our Hero hasn’t ridden off into the sunset just yet, perhaps.


  47. davis58 says:

    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24

    I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, too them he is, At the end of the day if I believe that Rangers are still Rangers playing at Ibrox in the same strip and with 5 stars (History), then they are Rangers to me! What you consider them to be is of absolutely no interest to me.
    —————-

    Ergo the same club that has willingly dumped a debt to the tune of £94,000,000.00. And that’s just to the taxman. This is also, or willl very soon be, historical and will be directly attributed to your club until the end of days.

    A very expensive piece of embroidery on a shirt no?

    What price vanity.


  48. johnboy5088 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 16:32

    Agrajag at 16.03:
    You’re working awfy hard here to convince us Murray was not/is not involved. Why?

    ======================

    I am doing nothing of the sort.

    David Murray was a non-entity by the time all of this took place.He was at most a puppet taking instructions from Lloyds. He was still the public face but that was all.

    Lloyds owned around 24% of MIH, having converted debt to equity, they were still owed something like £700m by MIH. They had placed someone (Muir) on the board of Rangers, he was really running things at the end.

    I have no doubt Murray knew Whyte, I have no doubt he knew exactly the mess he was putting Rangers into. Lloyds did not care, they wanted their £18m. The Rangers fans’ anti Lloyds campaign did nothing to help that.

    Murray was not involved because it was outwith his control, he is a failed businessman, who only ever appeared to be anything else because of his corrupt relationship with BOS, which became HBOS, which was bought over by Lloyds.

    David Murray may have been the one who “recruited” Whyte, but he was only acting under instructions. He only helped destroy Rangers because he had no other option. He had his real business to consider at the time.

    Let us be clear though, if there is one man responsible for Rangers’ death it is David Murray. Not at the end, but his policies for years. Including the over-spending and the tax evasion.


  49. johnboy5088 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 16:32

    Agrajag at 16.03:
    You’re working awfy hard here to convince us Murray was not/is not involved. Why?
    Once again:
    Murray: Co-owner of GM Mining, based in Bellshill.
    Whyte: Owner of an infamous plant hire firm based in Bellshill.
    Murray: Owner of Murray Metals, steel stockholders.
    Whyte: Son-in-law of the owner of the Martins of Dundyvan steel mill in Coatbridge (and founders of the local lodge).

    Duped? Murray? Ha!
    —————————————————————————————————————————-

    Worth repeating for those who just don’t get it.

    Although the jury is still out on the extent of (-S)DM’s present involvement in Ticketus, there has been a sufficient amount of evidence produced to link Whyte (+ Whyte Snr) and Murray going back a long, long way. Whyte was even called the ‘new David Murray’ in the press in the nineties.

    Murray has conspired with others to bring about the death of old Rangers and subsequently their tax and other liabilities.

    And the conspiracy that started in Bellshill will end in the Megrahi Suite @ Barlinnie.

    Your right on one thing, Agrajag, by late 2009 Murray was no longer in charge of running any of his business empire – save for the few small family businesses granted to him after the second MIH restructure – but he has been in charge and was the architect of the method of disposal of Rangers and the news management of that process.


  50. I’ve not agreed with davis58 before… but I don’t think a football club is equivalent to Elvis, or indeed to most other businesses – sayTesco. The legal arguments are one thing; we all know that the business that was Rangers is about to disappear.

    But there is something about a football club that is different. At the risk of bringing up Wimbledon again (see RTC blogs, every month or so), I think a lot of folk would agree that the club that was Wimbledon FC is not now MK Dons – even if the business that was Wimbledon FC *is* now MK Dons. The club that was Wimbledon FC is AFC Wimbledon – because the club is not a business that can be bought and sold, but something that people feel. As Supporters Direct said, “nobody ever asked for their ashes to be scattered at Tesco’s”.

    It is precisely the emotional identification with the club that makes it more than a business – even if the majority of big clubs are run as big businesses at this particular point in history. And the last fact is the reason why we’re here, I reckon – because we don’t want football just to be a business, we don’t want to choose between clubs like we choose between supermarkets. The fat that big clubs *are* businesses, whether we like it or not, is the reason why we need proper transparency in football, so that what happened to Rangers fans (and Portsmouth fans, etc) doesn’t keep happening to other clubs’ fans.

    And this is where I part company with davis58 – I can’t understand why s/he doesn’t share that anger, and join the good folks on here to try to channel it towards real change that would benefit all fans. Let’s at least try to make it harder for the charlatans and cheats to make a mess of clubs that not businesses, but emotional, community assets.


  51. 1.Agrajag says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 16:03

    With regard the business losing money, and even going bust. Ticketus thought that their tickets survived any insolvency. So long as Ibrox existed and someone was playing football there then they owned the tickets which were sold to watch that football. They argued this in the Court of Session and were told that under Scots law, and in particular rights over property, they were wrong.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Agrajag
    Are you seriously suggesting that Ticketus invested £24.5m of Client money in a club being sold for £1 and very likely to be liquidated without checking the implications of their contract under Scots Law ?
    Seriously?
    Are you saying that Octopus Investments are THAT incompetent?
    What kind of advert is that for a major investment business?
    Are you suggesting that Octopus did not warn the RFC Investor(s) in advance that their money would be lost under Scots Law if RFC were liquidated?
    Where does this leave these Investors ? Why haven`t they sued Octopus for their incompetent mismanagement?
    Why have Fern Trading(Octopus Co) taken out a floating charge on all £70m of Ticketus funds including the RFC ST money?


  52. Just to add – those with an interest in the Bellshill years might enjoy Baxendale-Walker’s
    proximity at that time. Think of Plant manufacturers that went bust and trace their pension scheme.


  53. I dont think anyone has picked up on this. This is from corsicas charity expert.

    Apologies if its been discussed.

    I worked for Corsica and I have a couple of things to pass on:
    First, Corsica passed away 6 weeks ago from cancer (he didn’t tell anyone that he had it).
    I think you can post that he passed away on the blog if you wish.
    Second, I am the charity expert he referred to at times. There is no further news on the investigation into the Rangers charity foundation. Indeed, it has all gone strangely quiet on that front even though a report has been submitted which I am told was highly critical of the Foundation and recommended severe censure of the trustees and its administrator as well as surcharging trustees for the loss to the charity but stopped short of recommending prosecution.
    Third, I have seen reports today about the Leeds United buy-out and it might be worth someone looking at the links between Green and the consortium buying Leeds. Corsica was told by Ken Bates that Green had asked about buying Leeds just before the deal to buy RFC/Sevco went through and was given short shrift but Green was insistent.
    Corsica was convinced there was a very strong link here though and thought that this might be the real prize for Green and his gang.
    Fourth, the common link between Corsica and myself was the guy who made a serious £20m bid to buy RFC (which Corsica posted about on RTC) that was not even acknowledged. He says he has now heard of two other serious bids of £15-£20m(by RFC “people” in London) which were not even acknowledged by D&P. The clear feeling is that Green is in cahoots with Whyte and was always in on the scam with D&P furiously covering their backsides.


  54. TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 17:09

    johnboy5088 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 16:32

    Agrajag at 16.03:
    You’re working awfy hard here to convince us Murray was not/is not involved. Why?
    Once again:
    Murray: Co-owner of GM Mining, based in Bellshill.
    Whyte: Owner of an infamous plant hire firm based in Bellshill.
    Murray: Owner of Murray Metals, steel stockholders.
    Whyte: Son-in-law of the owner of the Martins of Dundyvan steel mill in Coatbridge (and founders of the local lodge).

    Duped? Murray? Ha!
    —————————————————————————————————————————-

    Worth repeating for those who just don’t get it.

    =========================================

    Or get it and don’t agree the interpretation.

    I don’t think anyone is disputing it is highly likely that David Murray knew Craig Whyte, and even knew Craig Whyte was a tax fraudster himself.

    I don’t think that anyone denies the possibility that Murray even suggested Whyte as a potential new owner.

    However in my opinions by the time the sale took place David Murray was simply doing as he was told. Now that may have been “Find someone to buy this business, and at the same time get us our £18m”. However the end result is the same. It was Lloyds who were making the decisions in relation to all of David Murray’s businesses.

    With regard him being “duped”, that is clearly not true. He just didn’t care who he was selling to and how it would end up.


  55. expectinrain says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 17:12

    “the club is not a business that can be bought and sold”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Chuckie Green might disagree with you there my friend.
    He thinks he bought the “club”.


  56. I dont think anyone has picked up on this.

    This is from the seperate page set up for corsica.

    Apologies if it has been discussed.

    I worked for Corsica and I have a couple of things to pass on:
    First, Corsica passed away 6 weeks ago from cancer (he didn’t tell anyone that he had it).
    I think you can post that he passed away on the blog if you wish.
    Second, I am the charity expert he referred to at times. There is no further news on the investigation into the Rangers charity foundation. Indeed, it has all gone strangely quiet on that front even though a report has been submitted which I am told was highly critical of the Foundation and recommended severe censure of the trustees and its administrator as well as surcharging trustees for the loss to the charity but stopped short of recommending prosecution.
    Third, I have seen reports today about the Leeds United buy-out and it might be worth someone looking at the links between Green and the consortium buying Leeds. Corsica was told by Ken Bates that Green had asked about buying Leeds just before the deal to buy RFC/Sevco went through and was given short shrift but Green was insistent.
    Corsica was convinced there was a very strong link here though and thought that this might be the real prize for Green and his gang.
    Fourth, the common link between Corsica and myself was the guy who made a serious £20m bid to buy RFC (which Corsica posted about on RTC) that was not even acknowledged. He says he has now heard of two other serious bids of £15-£20m(by RFC “people” in London) which were not even acknowledged by D&P. The clear feeling is that Green is in cahoots with Whyte and was always in on the scam with D&P furiously covering their backsides.


  57. goosygoosy says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 17:21

    1.Agrajag says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 16:03

    With regard the business losing money, and even going bust. Ticketus thought that their tickets survived any insolvency. So long as Ibrox existed and someone was playing football there then they owned the tickets which were sold to watch that football. They argued this in the Court of Session and were told that under Scots law, and in particular rights over property, they were wrong.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Agrajag
    Are you seriously suggesting that Ticketus invested £24.5m of Client money in a club being sold for £1 and very likely to be liquidated without checking the implications of their contract under Scots Law ?
    Seriously?

    ==================================

    I am saying they argued it in the Court of Session and it is a matter of public record.

    If that doesn’t work for you then there’s not a lot I can do about it.


  58. expectinrain says Monday, October 1, 2012 at 17:12

    ———————
    well said, you’ve hit the nail on the head several times on your comment


  59. expectinrain says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 17:12

    “the club is not a business that can be bought and sold” ” emotional, community assets”.

    ————————————————————————–

    So what does Mr Green own? A company or a club? You seem to be inferring that the “club” is in fact just the supporters and nothing more. The “club” doesn’t own the stadium or other assets, players etc.? Does green own these and rents them out to the “club” via payment in the form of season ticket money and gate receipts? Am I picking you up right?


  60. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19789342

    SFA president Campbell Ogilvie – I’m not doing my job properly
    President Campbell Ogilvie insists he has been a frustrated onlooker during a turbulent period for the Scottish FA.

    “If I’m totally blunt, I believe that in the last six months I haven’t been doing my job properly,” said Ogilvie.

    Ogilvie has stayed out of discussions regarding Rangers because of his previous involvement with the club.

    The former Ibrox company secretary was also a beneficiary of the Employee Benefit Trust scheme run by the club, which is currently under scrutiny.

    The EBT arrangement and its operation by Rangers is the subject of an appeal to a First Tier Tribunal after HMRC claimed for more than £49m in unpaid tax.

    The Scottish Premier League has also established an independent tribunal to investigate claims of alleged dual contracts, stemming from the use of EBTs.

    Ogilvie was employed by Rangers from 1978 until 2005, when he joined Hearts.

    Asked if his position would become untenable if the FTT decided the scheme had been run illegally, Ogilvie responded: “If there was a feeling that it was causing an issue then I would have to discuss that with the association.

    “I’ve tried to be up front throughout this process and really we will have to wait for the outcome of the tax tribunal and the SPL tribunal.

    “I don’t see that it should make any difference to the way I operate.”

    Rangers chief executive Charles Green claims the SFA and SPL offered the club a way into Division One if they accepted guilt over the claims of dual contracts.

    The game’s governing body have not commented on the matter and Ogilvie could not shed any more light on the subject.

    “Because of my previous involvement with Rangers, I didn’t take part in any of the discussions,” he explained.

    “My understanding is that the group buying Rangers had asked for all possible scenarios to be put on the table.

    “I could not take part in the debate and that has bothered me. But there was no alternative.

    “As president, I believe I have a role to play.

    “I haven’t met Charles Green. I’d like to sit down and have a discussion about the way forward with him but I can’t comment.”

    Talking at the draw for the Scottish Cup third round, Ogilvie was quizzed on Scotland manager Craig Levein’s decision to overlook in-form Sunderland stiker Steven Fletcher.

    “My view is clear,” explained Ogilvie. “The manager is employed to pick the team and it’s not for myself or any another board member to interfere in that process.

    “I don’t think that it’s right that a director should in any way influence team selection.”


  61. “If I’m totally blunt, I believe that in the last six months I haven’t been doing my job properly,” said Ogilvie.

    Would it be stretching it to assume he means he has not been able to cover up anything over the 6 months as that would appear to be what his job was.


  62. Thanks parttimearab.

    Althetim at 17:32 and wolvibhoy at 17:59 – you are right that this is where the difficulty lies. We’ve allowed our clubs to be turned into businesses, so if a person from outwith the club buys the business, they will naturally think in doing so that they’ve bought the club. And at that moment, they have; but as Charles Koppel and others found out, buying the business doesn’t guarantee that you own the club. A few years after doing the deal to relocate to Milton Keynes, the business “renounced the history” of Wimbledon FC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Wimbledon_F.C._to_Milton_Keynes.

    I imagine a fairly big concern for Mr Green right now is that the new Rangers are not even the same business as the old one – so he probably feels that he needs to do everything possible to ensure that the new business is not just seen, but *felt* by the fans to _be_ the same club. Particularly unfortunate is that he seems to have taken the view that the core support that guarantee this are those associated with a particular politico-religious viewpoint…

    What you can understand though is Green’s concern that the new business might come to be seen as something other than the club – in which case it won’t matter, ultimately, if he can claim a stadium or a manager or a songbook, if the fans decide that some new FC Rangers, coming up through the leagues the hard way is actually their club. Another good reason to get fans bought into the current business, even if you didn’t immediately need the money to cover costs.

    But I’m not answering the question, really – what did Charles Green buy? I’d say the right to have the first go at continuing the club, once the old business died. Is it guaranteed that the new business will be the club, for the foreseeable future? No.


  63. TallBoy Poppy at 17:25:

    Are you talking about an Eatt Kilbride forklift firm and a notorious Danish conman?
    I always had my suspicions about that.
    Funnily enough, the conman (Bjorn Stiedl) also had significant dealings with Collyer Bristow, I believe.
    So significant that they could lead to Collyer Bristow going bust if they lose a current court case.
    Small world, isn’t it?


  64. davis58 says:
    “”””””””””””””””””
    Evening Jack.
    The dam has burst and it is now a case of trying to push water uphill. Best of luck with that.
    Gravity 1-0 Media House.


  65. nice one campbell, we’re all delighted that your first priority is meeting charles.
    your PR talents are limitless.
    great to have you back.


  66. davis58 says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24
    0 47 Rate This
    wolvibhoy says:
    Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:07
    I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny
    analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, too them he is, At the end of the day if I believe that Rangers are still Rangers playing at Ibrox in the same strip and with 5 stars (History), then they are Rangers to me!
    What you consider them to be is of absolutely no interest to me.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    You will, I hope, recall our previous chat. Think about whether 2+2 equals 5 or 4. Then re-read your post (copied above).

    That’s right. You got it wrong again.

    Davis58. I’m guessing that you didn’t follow the RTC site. If you did you will know that I defended Rangers fans who posted (most notably Adam). Adam was a guy that many people disagreed with. But, particularly in the early days of the site, he provided an invaluable counterpoint to the enthusiastic football fans of many clubs (although admittedly mostly Celtic). You are not doing that.

    No-one here thinks Rangers doesn’t exist. But if you think that it is the same club that featured in last seasons SPL then you probably think that Gary Mullen is Freddie Mercury.

    PS Jonathan Watson is not really Frankie bhoy either.


  67. Does CO know no shame. Not only did he know about the deal to help Sevco he was central to its inception. The man has no moral fibre otherwise he would have been gone long ago.

Comments are closed.