JCDBigBear

Stockbroker I used was Redmayne Bentley in Glasgow. I think the shares are about £0.25 each. Brokers fees are not very expensive.

Stockbroker I used was Redmayne Bentley in Glasgow. I think the shares are about £0.25 each. Brokers fees are not very expensive.

Stockbroker I used was Redmayne Bentley in Glasgow. I think the shares are about £0.25 each. Brokers fees are not very expensive.

I'm a shareholder. You buy them through a stockbroker. Not sure what the current price is as I haven' t bought any for many years and I have no intention of selling them. Probably approx £0.25 each. Buy a minimum of 100 shares.

I loved the way we sang TBB but if we can't sing the same words then let's go for a change. I have an old Rangers LP from the sixties which has entirely different lyrics which we could "tweak". The LP had " A Goal. a goal, we're ready to acclaim......" as a start but some bits were ok for use today. I give you some old/new mix: Hello, hello, we are the Rangers boys Hello, hello you'll know us by our noise We follow Glasgow Rangers Our hearts beat strong and true We Are The People Who cheer the boys in blue Hello, hello, we are the Rangers boys Hello, hello you'll know us by our noise We'll beat the Celtic any day As sure as I'm alive 'cos we are the Glasgow Rangers boys I agree with the guy who thinks that we should issue a copy of (whatever) words for the fans to sing.

Your attitude gets Rangers the worst publicity. Before you F*** this that and the other, sponsors will not and cannot be associated with bad publicity. You need to consider whether you want Rangers to succeed in future or do you prefer that your wish to sing "The Billy Boys", etc takes precedence.

Please get real, you will only hurt the Club for your own ends. Take up your point away from Rangers games. I am as loyal as anyone but do not want the Club punished. Get writing in an educated fashion to your MP and MSP.

Please take note: It isn't just about what you/we want, it's about what we/you are allowed to sing by legislation. Compared to other teams and their fans' abuse, we are no worse. It all depends on viewpoint. Protestantism is in the European minority. In the old days, none of the foreign lot knew what we were singing and to them it was just noise. Now, everyone knows that not only are we basically Protestant, but it has now been highlighted ( and brought to the attention of UEFA, etc) that we are allegedly totally anti-catholic or catholics. Blatter is a very devout catholic and many in UEFA are the same. He is hardly likely to give us any leeway. Our detractors do not take cognisance of the fact that we have idolised many RC players over the years. It is a fallacy that Rangers never signed RC players before Mo Johnston in 1989, we just never knew them, although Don Kitchenbrand was RC. In the past, most Scottish RCs didn't want to sign for the Gers and that hasn't really changed. All our recent RC players have mostly been non-Scottish (eg, Albertz, Hateley, Novo, Amoruso, Gattuso, Cannigia, Amato). Neil McCann anybody?? What a really good player he was for Rangers. Prso and Jelavic are Croatian and very likely RC but UEFA and the SNP are not interested in the fact that these players are so very popular with Rangers fans. Unless we stop what is now deemed offensive and illegal, Rangers FC will be deducted points, thrown out of Euro competition and penalised financially. Is that what you want???? If you have serious issues about unfair legislation (I certainly have) then take it up outside Ibrox and Rangers games. You only hurt the Club.

I wasn't referring to Murray's financial handling of Rangers. The criticisms of Amoruso and the initial appointment of PLG were the matters to which I referred. There was also an implied criticism of all catholic players as if they were not good signings for Rangers.

I wasn't referring to your dislike for Murray's financial running of the Club. I'm certainly not a "twat", I suggest you look in the mirror to see one. Your criticisms are Neanderthal. Are you saying that Mo Johnston and Amoruso weren't good players for Rangers? Are you the only Rangers fan that didn't think PLG was a good signing (at the time)? You also appear to be implying that no Catholic player was a good player for Rangers, is that correct?

You are a very sad individual.

It is far too early for anyone to criticise Whyte. Exactly where would Rangers be if he hadn't bought the club? It has been noted previously that the best players would have been sold at this point at the behest of Lloyds Bank. The tax cases would still be hanging over the Club. Whyte may not be perfect but he's better than what we had, surely you can see that? How is Whyte an idiot? Is it because he is reasonably wealthy and has put money into Rangers? What has he to gain out this purchase in the long term? He only bought the Club because he is a Gers fan. No one else would buy it for any other reason and no one even offered.

All this tax case frenzy is becoming tiresome. This is not a new issue, it has been "on the radar" for approximately 2 years. Why is everyone getting so worked up and interested at this point in time? The media are stirring this deliberately, in my opinion. We simply must wait to see the outcome of the tax tribunal. If it goes in favour of RFC, then great, if it goes against us then the likelihood is administration. Rangers FC will still exist. I cannot imagine that Craig Whyte thinks that we will lose this case having had people look carefully at the facts before takeover. If he thought it would go against us then why did he not simply wait until that was clear and move for the Club when the issue was settled? As for all the posters on Rangers Media, would you buy into the Club if required? There is an awful lot of moaning about other people spending money on the Rangers but I don't read anything about fans buying into RFC.

Yes, we are a test case for HMRC.

Craig Whyte's story on the larger HMRC case has not changed. He said he is confident that it will end in our favour. That is based on advice from tax experts. If he was 100% sure then there would not be a tribunal at all. Confidence does not mean certain. You can be confident about something but that does not mean you are absolutely 100% certain. The money which is ring-fenced by HMRC relates to the second smaller tax case. There is a liability there but Whyte is contesting the amount. RFC has actually made a payment against this but not for the full amount claimed by HMRC.

The tribunal has to listen to the validity of points put forward by both sides in consideration of the Laws which would have been applicable at the date(s) in question. They can't just think "I hate Rangers" and judge against our Club. They will have to give written judgements with reasons (in Law) for their decision. If they are found to have been impartial in any way, then the recriminations for them would be great indeed. Basically, it is in their own best interests to be totally fair. Rangers will have their own legal tax experts putting forward their points and these people will be totally knowledgeable in such matters.

Craig Whyte bought the Club simply because he is a supporter. If this was a normal venture capital case, he would have run a mile. The whole takeover saga took a while as Whyte (sensibly) would have the books carefully checked. The main problem is the first (and largest) HMRC case. No one knows what this figure could actually amount to, particularly when a tribunal has still to decide one way or the other. I anticipate an appeal from whichever party loses in round one. Just in case HMRC win and RFC is held accountable for whatever millions, Whyte's takeover deal has been set up to ensure that he is a preferential creditor. Why does any Rangers fan think that is particularly bad? No other party came in for the Club on a serious basis. If any fan out there would do any different from Whyte then I certainly haven't read it on this forum. Buy the club's debt and add other expenditure to total in the region of £20m to £25m just to see it go down the drain 6 months later if HMRC win the case? I don't think so and clearly neither does Craig Whyte. His PR side of things could be better but we are in a far better financial position now than pre-takeover. If Rangers win this HMRC case then Whyte has promised to wipe the sum of money currently shown as owed to his company in RFC accounts. For everyone's information, Rangers FC is not the only club awaiting the outcome of this case. I believe we are a test case. The second smaller HMRC case (arising from RFC accounting in the period 1999 to 2003) only came fully to the fore just prior to the takeover and I believe that this claim arose due to HMRC winning a test case against another company for the same type of tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is not a crime but tax evasion is. If there was tax evasion then criminal charges would be instigated against those responsible. As that hasn't happened, it is safe to assume that the problem arose due to interpretation of Tax Laws. Obviously, the Tax Laws in such situations cannot be clear cut otherwise no such tribunals and test cases would arise. Whyte has stated that HMRC had not provided the paperwork for the new Rangers people to peruse but then shortly after they hit the Club with an arrestment on a sum in the Club's bank accounts. According to Rangers, RFC agree that some payment is due (and a significant 6 figure sum has been paid) but RFC disputes the initial total of £2.8m (approx) and the £1.4m penalty. The Club will obviously require time to fully investigate the HMRC claim. I do wonder however why some provision was not made in the accounts for the total sum before this year as the Board at RFC knew of this claim sometime between June and December 2010. The Interim Report mentions a provision of £900,000 for this item. The question is, how did this rise suddenly to £4.2m by May 2011? That is surely down to the previous Board to answer. What we Rangers fans need to remember is that both these problems arose due to the previous Board and Whyte is doing his best to resolve them with as little cost to RFC as possible. These things take time. As for Martin Bain, having met the man on a number of occasions, I have found him to be relatively pleasant when discussing matters relevant to Rangers. However, in the last ten years he will have received over £4m from Rangers which is quite ridiculous for his position. I certainly don't see how he can get bonuses and salary increases whilst the Club's financial position was in such perilous state. As far as I can see, the turnaround in the Club's fortunes in the last couple of years was due to the hate figures placed on the Board (ie Messrs Muir and McGill). They were given the task of ensuring that costs were greatly reduced. Both these men are big Rangers fans and they had a thankless task. They got all the flak when previous Board members had created the problem. I also find it disgraceful that Martin Bain is claiming £1.3m from Rangers. He was fortunate to have the job and the fantastic salary. He was grossly overpaid for the position. He may find himself under investigation for corporate mismanagement or such similar charge. Time will tell on that one. How did Rangers get in to the current mess? With the HMRC cases, RFC will have taken tax advice at the time but you take such advice at your own risk. The lack of clarity with Tax rules has been seized upon by HMRC who are desperate to raise tax income following pressure from the UK Government. The Treasury needs money from anywhere it can get it as the UK is in financial trouble. We are not the only business being hounded although the publicity we are receiving due to deliberate leaking of information makes it appear so. There is undoubtedly an anti-Rangers element involved in how the media find out about HMRC visits, etc. We must also consider what input Sir David Murray has had in the past. £12m for Flo and £14m for Murray Park are two examples of extreme expenditure which impacted at a time when the Club's revenue streams began to be adversely affected. The Murray group had been bank-rolling RFC but MIH companies hit a downturn. TV money reduced dramatically due to the SPL going with Setanta instead of Sky. When Setanta inevitably collapsed, Sky had the SPL over the proverbial barrel. I'm not totally absolving David Murray from blame, but for many years we all bought a ticket on the Murray gravy train. There is little that the ordinary Rangers fan can do about the situation at this time other than to support the Club, buy the tickets and merchandise and to encourage the team on the park. (No sectarian singing though!!!) What I would ask everyone (or anyone) who reads this is: Would you be prepared to buy into the Club in the future? An estimated 200,000 went to Manchester in 2008. If they all gave £100 to RFC that would be £20m, £200 is £40m. Suddenly the HMRC problem doesn't look quite so daunting. If 50,000 bought into the Club at £500 each (£10 per week for 1 year) that would raise £25m. I would do it for the three members of my family, would any of you? Craig Whyte may not have the mega money we would like him to have for investment in Rangers, but no one else is coming forward. We need to give him a chance and please ignore the mischievous rumours in the media and in internet forums such as Rangers Media. There are few (if any) facts in the majority of the posts and media articles. The larger HMRC case has been common knowledge for close on 2 years but the media would have you think that this is all new. Both cases were noted in the Club's accounts during 2010 so it is old news rehashed in sensationalist fashion. In the last few days Mr Whyte has issued statements and given a TV interview all available on the Rangers web site. They make a fair amount of sense to me although only time will tell whether Craig Whyte will be good for Rangers or not.

The first tax issue is not a bill. That is the one which could be the BIG tax claim, so far unquantified. It is unlikely to be settled this year and no matter who wins the initial stage (Rangers or HMRC) you can guarantee that the "losing" side will appeal the decision. That scenario means that the matter is unlikely to be fully settled before autumn 2012. In this tax issue, we are a bit unlucky as we are a test case for HMRC. There are other clubs in the UK who are sitting with fingers crossed on this. I believe that the test case was to be either RFC or Spurs. The second and current tax issue for the £2.8m plus penalties, interest, etc of £1.4m only arose in spring this year. The reason it appeared on the radar was due to HMRC winning another test case (nothing to do with Rangers) but they obviously must have known that our accounting practices of 12 years ago meant that we would be due to pay additional tax. Craig Whyte apparently admits that RFC is due to pay some of the claim but not the total £4.2m . This tax claim will have to be shown in the next accounts because it is a bill from HMRC. It has not been shown before because it was non-existent before this year. The other tax issue only has to be noted as a possible liability of unknown amount as it has already been shown in recent RFC accounts. It is not a liability at present because no account has been sent by HMRC. The exchange of correspondence between RFC and HMRC concerns the interpretation of the tax laws and RFC accounting practices in place at that time. It is my opinion that if HMRC thought they had a very strong case then they would have issued a tax demand to RFC already for whatever millions. They were very quick off the mark with the second smaller issue where they were obviously sure of their case.

I would like to know how the legal bill was calculated. Most solicitors charge fees by the hour. Even if they charge £200 per hour that is 175 hours. That is 3 weeks at a 58 hour week. If Vat is on top of the £200 per hour then that would make it 140 hours or 3 weeks at 47 hours per week. Say a legal team of two lawyers your looking at 1.5 weeks for both of them. I can't see how they can justify that amount of time. However, the bill may have been based on a percentage of the money at stake which would certainly raise the final price although I can't believe anyone would agree to this idea. In most cases, the solicitor is supposed to give you an indication of how much the fees are likely to be before they take the case. If RFC think that the bill is excessive then they should pay the original sum and argue about the balance. I suppose it is possible that the £35k is the excessive bit and we have paid the original estimate. Under normal circumstances, if a solicitors account is being contested then the Law Society of Scotland would mediate. It looks like RFC hasn't paid a coin at this stage. Unfortunately, as with all things Rangers at present, we can only speculate. We are a PR disaster.

I also sent a communication to Craig Whyte but received no response. That is never a good sign. I could speculate like Mr Struth and the Weiss Man as either of the guys could be right, they could also both be partly right and partly wrong. I could come up with a few theories but I have nothing concrete to start with. I can't understand why there has been no information forthcoming from Ibrox ( and I don't mean " a source"). Even if Whyte wishes to keep his cards to his chest, he should still release a limited statement because there is nothing worse for a Company's standing than negative rumours which are allowed to go unanswered. I'm usually an optimist but the reality of this situation certainly gives me cause for concern. There are far too many different rumours circulating without anyone coming up with a shred of proof. The "my mate's uncle knows **** " type rumour just doesn't have any credibility. People on internet chat such as RM only add to the problem at times. Speculation is pointless in this case until we have some basis for informed discussion. If I was a journalist I would be pitching up at Ibrox every day to speak to Whyte or one of the other directors. The Club's silence merely adds fuel to the fires being started by the media and that other mob at the San Giro / Meccanodome.

Yes travelling time in those days was murder just in Scotland let alone going to England or the Continent. You'll be quicker travelling from Naples, FL !!!!!!!!! Nice place Naples. Been there three times, stayed at World Tennis Club on the strangely named Airport Pulling Road.

This is another good article. I hope people at RFC read it and take it to that smug ***** Salmond and the rest at their anti-Rangers (oops) anti-sectarianism meetings.

An excellent article. I've passed it on and asked others to do likewise. The more people who get to read it the better.

TBD, no theory really, it is exactly what would have happened, as assets would be sold to get the bank their cash back quickly. I'm not kidding about the Lloyds director because the man approached me for a word as I was leaving the AGM. I specifically went to criticise them publicly (which I did) by questioning their board on their treatment of a company (RFC) which was not just meeting payback terms previously agreed with Lloyds but had in fact exceeded such payback terms. The bank Chairman Sir Winfried Bischoff apologised to me in public at the AGM. A small point I admit, but at least he said it in the public domain.

GBT Papac is correct. Lloyds would have done exactly that. One of their directors said as much at the bank AGM in May just after Whyte bought the Gers. Lloyds AGM was at the SECC because they are registered in Scotland. Lloyds wanted their cash back quickly no matter what.