Sobatai

I think a lot of it was tied to debts at other Murray holdings.

The owner of Newcastle United is, of course, the man behind Sports Direct. Etihad, sponsors of Manchester City's stadium is owned by Abu Dhabi, which also owns Manchester City.

I just can't, for the life of me, work out what he hoped to achieve. A quick buck? Possibly, but only the terminally stupid would seek to make a fast buck at the expense of Rangers. Let's be entirely realistic, Rangers is a club supported by more than its fair share of nutcases (as, by the way, is Old Firm rival Celtic) and thus seeking to profit at the expense of the club carries the faint whiff of lunacy. He had to know that he was playing with fire. You play with fire and you get burned.

So, that's half what he paid for Rangers.

Of course it's not impossible, it just complicates matters ... you can't just level the place and build. Any plans for re-developing the site would have to incorporate the facade of the Struth Stand.

It should be remembered that the facade of the Struth Stand at Ibrox is a listed building (Grade II), which makes re-development problematic.

It's easy to tell if Whyte's telling fibs ... his lips move.

That sounds very serious indeed and should be the final nail in the coffin of thought that the administrators are in Whyte's pocket. I still have absolutely no idea what Whyte hoped to achieve by his ill-conceived, ill-judged and ill-executed takeover of Rangers. Is he the Bonnie Prince re-incarnated?

Shares are worth what someone is willing to pay for them. Rangers is a limited company ... the limited refers to liability.

What's that saying about birds of a feather ...: http://www.thelawyer.com/collyer-bristow-%E2%80%98risks-collapse%E2%80%99-over-%C2%A350m-liability-dispute/1009604.article

The Rubicon was crossed when the club entered administration ... nothing in terms of a takeover will happen until administration is over. After the club exits administration, as it will, then the saviours (vultures) will swoop. Underneath it all there is a viable business.

As the administrators have been addressing the tax liabilities it seems reasonable to assume that they haven't been transferred anywhere. Nor could they be. The only thing that could be done is to transfer other assets of the club into a new entity and leave the old one, with its one-hundred-and-forty-year history to its fate.

Might not be too far fetched if she's been augmented.

Not quite. Leitch did work at Highbury, but the famous Art Deco facades of the East and West stands (which, incidentally, Arsenal incorporated into the residential development of Highbury quite beautifully) were not designed by Leitch. Leitch designed all three of Glasgow's major stadium (Ibrox, Parkhead and Hampden), as well as most major grounds south of the border. I still think it was an act of cultural vandalism that Aston Villa demolished his wonderful Trinity Road Stand at Villa Park.

With Rangers now in the hands of administrators, who are responsible to the courts, it seems a bit of an over-reaction on the part of Dundee United.

Either that or he gave the National Lottery a miss that week.

Does the guy have any money of his own? He says he doesn't "do walking away" and yet every single piece of evidence available suggests that the statement is only true in so far as he doesn't walk ... he runs. Where is there any solid evidence of a successful business venture associated with the guy?

That's not strictly true. Archibald Leitch did work at Highbury, but the famous Art Deco stands at Highbury were a later addition and possibly a replacement for the Leitch structures. Leitch also designed Celtic Park and Hampden Park, as well as many grounds south of the border. His finest piece of work was the Trinity Road Stand at Villa Park ... it remains an act of cultural vandalism that Aston Villa were allowed to demolish what was, effectively, a grander version of Ibrox's Struth Stand.

Yes, it's Red and White, which is Alisher Usmanov. A better gambit might've been to seek to persuade Usmanov to abandon his interest in Arsenal (Kroenke owns circa 66% of the Gunners, so it's not as if Usmanov is ever going to gain control) and get involved at Ibrox.

I can't see that Craig Whyte has done anything illegal in this context. He received no financial assistance from Rangers to purchase the club ... it would be a sorry situation if he needed to borrow a quid from the club to buy it. He appears to have merely reached an agreement with a third party in advance of the purchase that was dependent on the purchase going through. Whyte, it appears to me, has been monumentally stupid. No one seems to know where any money he might have has come from. I haven't seen any evidence of a business success story attributed to him. He talks of having experience of turning around distressed businesses and yet cannot seem to give a single example. Still, before this, who really cared? Now the spotlight is on him and he cannot escape it.