damien1

For many years some of us warned of what Murray was doing to our club, this warning went unheeded. The systematic dismantling of Rangers assets and contracts is what has lead us to where we are. Although we were starting to regain a good footing the damage was already done in terms of our credibilty as a club to deal with. Like has been said above, Murray signed the death warrant, Whyte just executed it.

I stated this last night that almost all the support would follow a Newco. The club is not the piece of paper lodged in a file in Companies House.

Tell me about it, we're all chomping at the bit.

We'd have to stay in administration for 7 years until he was declared dead lol

Of course we are the ace, but we're the ace in a lousy hand just now. But I'm betting that should we end up in a newco the fans will return to watch NewRangers or whatever play at Ibrox against the scum. In fact I'm almost certain of it. I've followed Rangers for near 40 years, I won't allow a piece of paper in Companies House dictate whether I should support my team or not. We are Rangers, we are the club and Ibrox is our home and our players wear the light blue of their forebearer. As long as this stands I will support them.

A dangerous guessing game that could see us re-enter administration as quickly as we leave it.

Didn't Ticketus refuse to pay the Exclusivity and Murray and Co had issues with it too?

What will they do? Buy him out? Let's get real, the fans are powerless just now. We are all clutching at anything that will save our club from extinction. Now if the last resort of that is a newco then we will acept it whether we like it or not. Let's just hope it doesn't go down that route.

Strange how Lloyds went after us like a pitbull for £18m, yet less than a year later loaned SDM £111m at the drop of a hat.

Tainted - they've had an amazing run of shocking refereeing decisions helping them along the way as well

Don't get hung up on it. Many make mistakes. How many backed SDM right up until he left? Have they made us look foolish as well? Anyway good debate, but bedtime now.

Lucy I think part of the VB stance was probably more to do with not wanting to believe anything the Scottish media throw at us as gospel. So until facts became more transparent some of us were within our rights to sit on the fence.

Lucy I believe he won't ever see the front door of Ibrox again. But I also believe that he is still a major card holder in all this debacle who can't be summarily dismissed. What is there we can do? It's pretty much out of our hands. We have to just wait and hope that the preferred bidder is willing to holdfast if he is willing to cause problems during the takeover. I'm unsure if the Americans and Singaporeans will have the stomach for that. I'm also unsure if TBK could hold out for such a legal battle too. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who was wrong and who was right, as long as the end result is that he is gone and we are on a better footing.

I haven't said whether I believe him or not, I have stated it is in the administrators report. As far as I am aware they are duty bound by court to tell the truth in that report.

Yes I have bolded some text, do take the time to read it. What are you trying to argue about here? He offered a deal, it was rejected. If you are questioning whether that deal would have seen the tax paid in full like CW says, we'll never know because the deal wasn't accepted. And please refrain from silliness. Like I've said on other threads, I deal with actual facts.

Again like I said to Lucy, I've put it in bold. He offered £200k and asked for time to find more funds. HMRC rejected this. Now that is an offer, it is not clearly a lie. Like it or not.

I've put it in bold for you.

Ok for the second time. He offered them money to pay of existing tax. You said it was clearly a lie. I posted evidence from the administrators report. What are you suggesting he clearly lied about?

You'll see from another thread that that is a third of the entirety of English clubs who have repaid in the past 10 years. Why they refused I do not know?

Nope as far as I'm aware. My post wasn't in support of him, just to dispel a suggest that he clearly lied, when he didn't. CW may be a dick, but base it on facts don't add bits to it that you haven't clearly researched.

It's is not clearly a lie, it is in the administrators report.

There is plenty good stuff out there written by experts in this field and have factual basis. However most people aren't willing to look for it and tend to go with the Scottish medias view on things. Now I iterate this, I am no CW fanboy, but his treatment from the Scottish media has been vile. He has done nothing wrong, nothing illegal and so far everything he said he would do. Albeit yes he told some minor lies, why 'minor', easy to answer, because why should a businessman lay bare every aspect of his business to all and sundry. Do we know all the ins and outs of Lewell's business dealings? Do we heck, because he lies to the media, difference is they aren't in trouble atm. More than likely CW has behaved immorally in all this, but look beneath the media stories and delve into the actual facts of the situation and not the person. The Scottish media have used Rangers current position to bolster sales. It has been a fact that their circulations have been increased since Rangers went into administration. Their own figures back this up. Positive stories don't sell newspapers, negative ones do. A great first post mitre and well researched, hopefully most will take the time to read it and it'll set their mind at ease.

When Darlington went into administration in 2009 – the second of three times the club has now done so – they owed HMRC tax arrears of more than four hundred thousand pounds. As part of the deal that led to them coming out of administration, unsecured creditors, including the tax man, received 0.0009 per cent of what was owed to them. In Darlington’s case on this occasion, they owed tax of £404,376 in tax – and paid £3.64. This is just one of the extraordinary facts revealed in an official HMRC document about the financial knock-on effects of English clubs that go bust and leave huge debts behind. Sportingintelligence has obtained a leaked copy of the 106-page document (extract left, click to enlarge it), which was prepared by HMRC for its ongoing legal battle against the Football League and Premier League to have the ‘Football Creditors Rule’ scrapped. This rule allows bust clubs in England to guarantee some creditors (“football creditors” such as players and other clubs) t0 be paid in full while other creditors get just a few pence in the pound, or nothing. Between 2000 and 2010, there were 53 incidents of clubs in England entering administration and the HMRC document includes official breakdowns of what clubs owed in 21 of those cases. As our graphic below shows, 15 clubs owed a total of £40.26m to the taxman – and more than £39.5m has never been paid or remains unaccounted for in those cases alone. Darlington’s £3.64 repayment in 2009 came after they’d previously committed to paying only £1,596 of a prior £215,631 tax bill in 2003. The biggest tax debtor on the list is Portsmouth, from their last administration (not the current one), when £17.3m was owed. Informed sources say that although Pompey agreed to pay 20 per cent of that back over time, not a penny has actually been paid. Portsmouth’s current liquidator, Geoff Carton-Kelly of Baker Tilly, was Portsmouth’s administrator last time around. He said: “Under the terms of the CVA (the first time) Portsmouth were due to pay 20p in the pound over five years. The first payment was due this coming Monday (1 April) but that won’t be happening as the club is in administration again”. Leeds United, meanwhile, agreed to just pay two per cent of a £7.7m tax bill in 2007, shedding more than £7.5m tax liabilities in the process. It was in 2002 that HMRC lost its ‘Preferential Creditor Status’, meaning it became an outside party alongside the likes of small local traders and the St Johns Ambulance service – all of which are often paid next to nothing. The full loss to the taxpayer will be much higher than £39m when all 53 cases are considered, not to mention non-English cases; infamously Rangers are awaiting the outcome of their ‘big tax case’ in which HMRC is claiming tens of millions. Sources north of the border expect some form of compromise on repayment of that, as and when a ruling is made on precisely what Rangers owe. There were 53 incidents of clubs entering administration from 2000 until November 2011, and already this year Portsmouth, Port Vale and Darlington have entered administration, as have Rangers. Football finance expert Professor John Beech, from Coventry University, said: “The return to the offensive against football clubs mounted by HMRC since 2009 is hardly surprising and neither is their fight to see the Football Creditors Rule overthrown. “Seeing the taxman as a soft touch for what is in effect an easy overdraft is neither good business practice nor fair to other taxpayers. “Failure to hand over VAT promptly strikes me as particularly indefensible. After all, the money has been collected on HMRC’s behalf”. HMRC are currently waiting for the High Court verdict on the Football Creditor’s Rule after opening a case against the Football League last November. A decision is expected over the next few weeks. Speaking at the case last year, HMRC’s Gregory Mitchell QC, said: “Whenever the football creditor rule is applied, there is always a loss to the taxpayer, which is why we bring these proceedings”. He added that the football creditors’ rule represented “the ugly side of the beautiful game”. The Football League has argued that unlike Premiership football players who are paid millions, the football creditor’s rule was set in place to protect players’ earnings in the lower leagues. However Professor Beech adds: “The defence of the Football Creditors Rule that is habitually trotted out – that the integrity of the league must be maintained – is unreasonable in my opinion. “I don’t see how the existence of the rule can be justified as a means for buying and selling players on credit when the buying club is well known to be on shaky financial grounds, and the selling club can, in effect, expect the public purse to act a guarantor for payment. “The rule is shameful, and reflects extremely badly on the whole football club business sector. In my view it’s counter-productive as it’s one of a number of factors that have contributed to the spiraling cost of transfer fees, which is hardly helpful to clubs”.

It is said in the report that the current real estate value of Ibrox and MP would be significantly reduced if Rangers ceased trading. So unless another football team bought it then it'd probably be worth a fraction of the £109m.

Given that all and sundry think he's a crook would he be bothered with that £30m debt when he owns £109m worth of Ibrox and Murray Park? Would he sell those?