October « 2019 « THE MAN THE BHEASTS CAN'T TAME

This blog is for a few reasons.

Is to flex my muscles to show I mean business to the obese, specky Rangers hating BBC Scotland producer that is Rangers Tax Case the twitter account and the one who after consulting with numerous other sectarian and Racist anti-Protestant anti-British Rangers hating bastards. Started the Rangers Tax Case blog.

(I aint stopping Fat Bhoy either you act like a man and out yourself or I will.)

You see Dominic Paul or the Black knight as he liked to call himself on the Rangers Tax case Blog or @THE_TBK was an administrator on said Racist and sectarian blog.

And a very key Player and a bigoted one to boot

Is holding such a key position as an administrator in the Rangers Tax case he often boasted about all the internet providers address he had collected through the blog. He was also in charge of vetting and un-vetting what was and wasn’t posted.

If you had to wade through what could only be described as a Bigoted, sectarian, Racist, Anti-British anti-Protestant cesspool masquerading as a blog on Tax avoidance schemes employed by Rangers Football club As I have had to do.

You will find that Dominic Paul of Paisley has some real explaining to do not just by the Police but also Legally in a civil court.

I will print all of the Obsessed Dominic Paul’s posts -Due to the voluminous of them I have had to break it down into 2011 and then 2012- Now if Rangers employees both past and present don’t want to do anything then that’s there business.

You can lead a horse to water and all that carry but AT LEAST I HAVE DONE MY BIT!!!

The Rangers Tax Case was set up and encouraged to be set up as a vehicle to put pressure on David Murray to sell up and to eventually put into the hand’s of organised crime That Rangers found themselves in and to an extent still find themselves in -not as much thankfully- today

I really don’t think the people who started up Rangers tax case knew at the time what they were doing well I know they didn’t but they certainly did at the end as Charles green got his claws in the club for his cronies. As just as the story

The industry that Dominic Paul and the contacts he has in said industry is a very big clue as to why we find Scottish Football in the state we find it today with a small number of Cretins like Peter Lawwell running the show completely over all aspects of Scottish football.

The sovereign over the sovereign as the Jesuits put it.

Dominic Paul from Paisley has from very early on been very secretive and clandestine about his personal Identity.

I don’t know why?

In may of 2016 I posted to Dominic Paul on his Business account that I knee of his alias on my now banned twitter account

This was then followed by a blog on the Militant Mole blog that had managed to get a face to the person of the Black Knight.

TBF his Business account was partisan to say the least

As until very recently he appeared to be just another late 40’s confirmed bachelor in the interior design trade.

But that was until the start of this year when Dominic Paul started slipping up.

Don’t get me wrong he still tried to cover his marks even on one of his biggest days of his life.

Imagine that for a second.

Just let that sink in.

Alas all to no avail for the interior designer Dominic Paul.

I don’t know what Interior designer Dominic Paul has got to be so secretive about or is to do with point 4 above?

All that will have to wait for another day but until then dear leader I will.

Oh and before I go can you post a link to this blog on the many social media sites and Rangers forums out there and spread the word as the account @uncoveredRTC has been restricted by Twitter.

That would be great.

The Black Knights 2011 Rangers Tax Case posts.

Making sense of nonsense 2 78 2243 28 28/4/2011 19:21:0 TheBlackKnight 47 1 “Could this be the vehicle for the purchase? Wonder how much they have raised
http://www.merchant-capital.com/recent-press/launch-of-new-fund”

Cost of the UEFA problem 2 77 2240 27 28/4/2011 18:56:0 TheBlackKnight 32 1 “Off topic I know, but did a bit of digging around in the city and found this…….
http://www.merchant-capital.com/recent-press/launch-of-new-fund
Could this be the funding vehicle? Interesting reading (and timing) (and amount) (and key players)
Have a look at the return 2% fee and 20% of the NET profit……….
Can’t wait to see how much they have raised ………… Interesting times over the next 48hrs (well long weekend)
😉
TBK!”

The deceptive Craig Whyte 1 5 4040 5 25/5/2011 16:3:0 TheBlackKnight 5 1 ” 😉 Lol”

Do you want know a secret? 2 54 3763 4 24/5/2011 10:49:0 The Black Knight 27 1 “wouldn’t it be funny if it was Mr D? Just a thought! 😉 ”

The Waiting Game 1 39 3610 39 23/5/2011 13:39:0 The Black Knight 25 1 “RTC, a great article again and some very pertinent comments.
I for one am starting to believe that the ‘Whyte Knight’ is increasingly becoming a lowly Pawn, used in an ever expanding and complicated game of financial chess.
I can only construct from recent developments that he has been solely brought in for two reasons:
1. A new owner that has pledged to bring success to the club. This ‘investment’ will bring the hordes to purchase their season tickets and a chance to invest in the future of Football Rangers Club Ltd. This will generate an interim sum of money to cover running costs and the servicing of the operating costs and repairs. Perhaps some purchasing of new players? (Only if others are sold)
2. By ‘shifting’ the debt from DM to Whyte (or whichever company it is that ‘owns’ Rangers) it gives two clear signals. One, DM has left Dodge City in a hurry and Two the bank are now in a key position to get the money which is owed to them. Previously under DM and MIH this was becoming increasingly unlikely.
I think wider questions have to be asked in regard to the goings on at this club. You have touched on these previously. This isn’t just about the potential tax bomb. This has more to do with the running of a club, that with despite very successful domestic campaigns and trips into Europe over the past 10 years or so, this club (company) has made NOTHING in terms of real profit.
I am led to believe this is most apparent on p10 (?) of Rangers latest interim accounts, that show a loss of £76M (citation required here) being wiped off the balance sheet by setting against the grossly overvalued estate.
I await Whytes next move with interest.”

Whyte of the long knives 3 143 3947 43 25/5/2011 8:53:0 The Black Knight 48 1 “Daryll King in todays Herald writes:
‘Mr Whyte, who bought the club in a £52.5 million deal on May 6.’
Hmmmmm Ok………?
Lets look at this for a moment.
Majority /controlling shares bought from David Murray for the paltry sum of £1
Bank Debt (albeit nothing confirmed – proved/ disproved – that this has been cleared) was said to be in the region of £23M
So I make that £23,000,001 (assuming the bank debt has been cleared)
Unless of course this deal includes the alleged promise to invest £25M over 5 years. Which still only totals £48,000,001
The FACT remains that the only thing anyone is assured about is that so far, legal fees aside, The Whyte Knight has only spent £1. The rest is at best conjecture.”

Whyte of the long knives 3 146 3950 46 25/5/2011 9:20:0 The Black Knight 48 2 “sorry just had to add this piece of enlightening information.
Tom English in the Scotsman confirms that :
‘He (Whyte) needs to walk the walk and not just talk the talk,’ said Johnston. Funny, that. Some would argue that, when Whyte gave Lloyds Banking Group £18m, that was a fairly clear signal that he wasn’t just a mouth almighty.
We’ll all see soon enough how he meets his promise of significant investment in the transfer market, but the £18m has already changed hands. It’s done!’
So Tom English has staked his ‘journalistic reputation’ that the money has been paid back to, ‘given’ to Lloyds!
The second part is misleading though as it states the £18M has changed hands. The debt or the repayment?”

Whyte of the long knives 5 208 4012 8 25/5/2011 13:58:0 The Black Knight 48 3 “good point Paul Mac!
Another point that has been bothering me is that The Whyte Knight has, as you say, purchased the shares in the club for less than a loaf.
This ‘£1’ has enabled Whyte to have the controlling share of the club, and we have to presume, the assets!
Could the use of the ordinary share value (bought for a £1 but worth considerably more) and the ‘assets’ be used to create a ‘paper wealth’ which can either offset the debt or interest investors to have their share of the assets? Are they using these funds (paper wealth) to secure interest or loans?
It is no secret that Merchant Capital set up ‘The Turnaround Fund – (code name) Gemini’ the weeks before taking over Rangers.
http://www.merchant-capital.com/recent-press/launch-of-new-fund
The timing of such a venture seems to play right into any theory! (all the same ‘players’ too) Just a thought!”

The deceptive Craig Whyte 1 8 4043 8 25/5/2011 16:20:0 TheBlackKnight 5 2 “Adam, don’t think this site is about Celtic or their accounts.?
Would be interesting to show the difference that 3 seasons without Champions League or European money, the financial crisis etc has had on a well run club with sagacious leadership though.
That aside, I still find the whole question of The Whyte Knights ability to run the club with prudent financial governance way off the mark. £25m over 5 years is actually less than what Rangers have been used to over the previous 5 years (over the period).
Also, there still seems to be ambiguity over the debt that has been cleared/ shifted/ buried and the reported £53m takeover?
‘Show me the money’ should be on everyones lips. As far as I can see, the £18m no longer is ‘owed’ to Lloyds and the club was effectively purchased for ‘£1’.
So where is the proof of the funds. As RTC and others have pointed out there is still no recognisable sign of any investment.
Whyte has been clever here. Promise to disclose, delay the disclosure once in control, disband the committee that questioned his ability to run the club, Ergo, no need to disclose.
I hope the HMRC decision comes soon to put all of this to bed, literally!”

The deceptive Craig Whyte 1 16 4054 16 25/5/2011 16:43:0 TheBlackKnight 5 3 “Agreed Adam, but this IS about the rangers tax case. Incumbent are the financial status/ the current debt/ the previous running accounts/ and eventual takeover (and costs associated) of the club. These are all relative. IMO”

The deceptive Craig Whyte 1 24 4063 24 25/5/2011 16:57:0 TheBlackKnight 5 4 “Hi droid,
Very confusing isn’t it. I think the Whyte PR machine is doing a fine job.
The ‘wordage’ as highlighted by RTC and others is very clever.
The ‘indebtedness’ transfered from Rangers owing Lloyds now sits with the owners of RFC (whatever the latest incarnation is)
That doesn’t say that it has / hasn’t been cleared? The other creditors are still owed upwards of £10m.That much we do know. There is of course the possible tax bill.
The papers still report the takeover as being in the region of £53m……… One has to ask ….. Why?”

The deceptive Craig Whyte 1 33 4072 33 25/5/2011 17:20:0 TheBlackKnight 5 5 “Im not sure if Rangers are still a Plc. The owners (previously Wavetower Ltd, owned by Liberty Capital Ltd, now Rangers Football Club Group Ltd) are a limited company.
Very confusing! :/”

The deceptive Craig Whyte 1 49 4089 49 25/5/2011 18:15:0 TheBlackKnight 5 6 “Celtic slipped to a pre-tax loss of £2.13 million in the year to June 30 2010 from a £2m profit before tax in the prior 12 months, as revenues slid from £72.6m to £61.7m. Profit from trading, before asset transactions and exceptional items, fell from £11.2m to £4.46m.
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
Operational Highlights
· Participation in the Group Stages of the UEFA Europa League.
· 5 home European matches (2009: 3).
· Nike kit sponsorship agreement extended to 30 June 2015.
· New three year shirt sponsorship contract agreed with Tennent’s.
· Appointment of Neil Lennon as Celtic football manager.
Financial Highlights
· Group turnover reduced by 15.0% to £61.72m.
· Operating expenses reduced by 6.7% to £57.25m.
· Profit from trading before asset transactions and exceptional items of £4.46m (2009: £11.23m).
· Investment in football personnel of £13.64m (2009: £8.53m).
· Gain on sale of intangible assets of £5.71m (2009: £1.55m).
· Exceptional operating expenses of £3.14m (2009:£2.78m).
· Loss before taxation of £2.13m (2009: £2.00m profit).
· Year-end net bank debt of £5.85m (2009: £1.51m).”

The deceptive Craig Whyte 2 58 4099 8 25/5/2011 18:57:0 TheBlackKnight 5 7 “Net bank debt £5.85m, so by your accounting there is another £25m to be accounted for ( and this years turnover / loss/ profit etc)
Just saying!”

Rangers have nothing to worry about 2 100 4740 50 1/6/2011 9:27:0 The Black Knight 43 1 “Sounds a bit daft I know……….but,
could there be a connection between the resignations of Johnson, Murray, and the sacking of Macintyre and Bain being ‘hung out to dry’ for ‘financial improprieties’ and the ongoing tax case?
I appreciate this may have been done as part of the wider ‘fake-over’, but could this be part of the defense?
As I see it, many tribunals (much like football governing bodies) take into account the ‘good work’ that the (new) owner has done in regards to weeding out this ‘dishonest cancer’. Could this be The Whyte Knights angle?
Blame the financial improprieties on the old board who were aware of it, it’s possible illegality, and therefore held personally responsible.
Something does not sit well with me.”

Rangers have nothing to worry about 3 135 4781 35 1/6/2011 15:5:0 The Black Knight 43 2 “thanks Boab, and others. I should have been clearer.
should the situation arise where Rangers fail to win their appeal (despite The Whyte Knight claiming his trusted advisors have told him they will win) and please forgive my naivety here, but put simply, can the ‘new’ board not claim that the misappropriation/ non payment of tax, lies solely at the feet of the previous board and their advisors? Criminal charges could be brought (for example)
The Whyte Knight could then claim he was ‘duped’ into ‘buying’ the club. (A lame horse in fact)
If Rangers lose the tax appeal, The HMRC would surely consider an ‘easy payment’ scheme as opposed to administration. He then has two options to consider,
1. sell the club – non starter – who would buy with the millstone of upto £50M tax liability and ongoing costs?
2. find incredibly strong investment on a regular basis to cover ALL of the costs. This too would seem to be a non starter as a football club making a profit is notoriously difficult regardless of the current economic climate.
If neither of these are viable (which they do not appear to be) I cannot see past administration/ liquidation. From a business perspective this makes total sense. The gross over valuation of the assets would have a large part to play in all of this however.
It will be interesting to see the tribunals position if it coincides with the statement from the club in regard to the takeover.”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 2 84 5282 34 5/6/2011 11:33:0 TheBlackKnight 40 1 “RTC, brilliant post again. We all, I’m sure, remain confused.
Just a few points to note, and forgive me if I have overlooked something as I am not familiar with such documentation.
1. The ‘wording’ certainly does appear to be confusing.
a) The document suggests that certain ‘assets’ have been released. Does this refer to everything but the season ticket money?
b) Does the document therefore refer to the ownership of the tangible assets, Ibrokes, Murray Park, Car Park and players etc?
2. The season ticket money is not a projection. This appears to give definitive figures. Otherwise they could not call them assets based on projected sales. Could they?
3. The term ‘ ticket’ clearly states this refers to season tickets 2011-2015!!
This does not appear to include General release, European, or cup game tickets that are not covered by a season book. Do ‘Ticketus’ not control or hold the revenue for all ticket sales?
The Rangers website clearly states the renew period for season tickets has ended. This document appears to suggest that there are only 27,017 confirmed for 2011-2012???
4. The document is signed, but strangely has no verification of the ‘signee’ or the date it was signed. It appears to be (or what can be perceived as being) a ‘P Bett…… squiggly and ‘ C W…… squiggle’. Have these been verified?
5. The document relates to what appears to be floating charges (owed/secured) to BoS in 1999. That would suggest the (secured) assets never moved from that period until now. Is that right? It also does not identify what the assets are?
6. Was the document received within 21 days of the registration of the new company (which one I don’t know – Wavetower? Rangers Football Group Club 1873 plc Ltd LLP etc etc etc ) The document notes a receipt date of 26/05/2011.
As I stated before please treat this as child like questioning!
(apologies in advance as iPhone typing is slightly frustrating)”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 2 90 5288 40 5/6/2011 11:44:0 TheBlackKnight 40 2 “Oh sorry, one further point.
7. Can the MG05s form be used during administration?
(you know where I’m going with that one)”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 3 107 5305 7 5/6/2011 12:58:0 TheBlackKnight 40 3 “Ooops! (previous post point 1)
Having read the form again it appears (to me) that the (funds) assets ‘released’ from the floating charge (loan/mortgage) are the season ticket sales.
Does this mean that everything else IS (or whatever other portions of the business as we do not know who owns what) still secured by LTSB (BoS)? There is nothing to suggest otherwise that the’ indebtedness’ has been transferred/ or cleared or indeed what this actually refers to.
Or am I wrong again?”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 3 118 5317 18 5/6/2011 14:31:0 TheBlackKnight 40 4 “agree Adam, it doesn’t make rational or business sense.
What my limited ability in such matters can decipher is that the season ticket money for the next 4 years are NO LONGER secured against any loan/ mortgage / floating assets.
That must mean everything else is STILL secured, with ownership being transferred to TRFCGLtd? right?
Does this mean that the assignation of the existing debt has released potential working capital for CW to run the company? Any investment would still need to come from the ‘outside’ with the promise of the paltry £5m ‘warchest’.
This will still never account for any potential tax liability. Furthermore why, if the ‘assets’ shown are indeed the porport to be, as ACTUAL season ticket sales to 2015, and are now removed from the guaranteed assets, where are these sales shown on the company accounts?
Someone stated previously this was akin to a good spy novel!
RTC you should have bookrights in the making 😉 ”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 3 125 5325 25 5/6/2011 15:19:0 TheBlackKnight 40 5 “Just as a wee aside……..
From the most recent set of accounts filed by THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C. their cash at bank in 2010 was: £348,000.
Cash in bank trend:
2010 – £348,000
2009 – £594,000
2008 – £4,590,000
2007 – £11,023,000
2006 – £23,034,000
2005 – £5,609,000
(Info taken from Company Check above relates to alleged ‘money in the bank’)
Contrast the drastic decline in particular the last 3-4 years (despite European & Championship money) with the latest info on Companies in the UK which states the capital as being in the region of £11m as of April this year despite company account not due until June 30th this year.
Wonder if these are accurate?”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 5 204 5410 4 5/6/2011 22:18:0 TheBlackKnight 40 6 “Adam says:
05/06/2011 at 7:21 pm
‘Did anything significant happen in 1999 that would have needed a £12 million security??’
Advocat!
(arrived the previous year and spent millions)”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 6 269 5478 19 6/6/2011 11:35:0 The Black Knight 77 1 “JohnBhoy says:
06/06/2011 at 10:25 am
‘Some may notice the strange similarity between the MG05S form signed by Rangers and the MG04 form (for England…..’
Agree JohnBhoy, but the MG04 appears to be a form to secure assets and the MGo5s is to release assets from the floating charge (mortgage/ loan).
I think everyone is agreed that the wordage is poor and misleading but does imply that the ticket money has been released.
That can only mean that all the other assets (whatever they may be – stadium/ training ground, cups and saucers etc etc) are still secured against the loan/ mortgage.
There was an interesting point made by another poster (sorry would mean trawling back) but the signatory for the credit appears to be non other than Mr P Betts. That would only mean that he (he represents the company that) now owns the debt/ assets, if the indebtedness was paid of to Lloyds (BoS), which incidentally it doesn’t appear to be the case.
The Ticketus rumour appears to be getting stronger too. This seems to be the vehicle that is funding the new Rangers revolution!
Interesting times ahead……………. perhaps like Patrick Duffy I may wake up tomorrow and it was all a dream…….. 😉 ”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 6 289 5499 39 6/6/2011 12:1:0 The Black Knight 77 2 “Adam, thanks for the comment.
The statement in the MG04 (section 4) appear to say that these elements are being secured then (section 5) say they are being released.
One of the documents (or both) appear to be filled in in error.”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 7 311 5521 11 6/6/2011 12:35:0 The Black Knight 77 3 “RTC
‘Update:
It has been pointed out that some legal trickery might be in play here. The document can be interpreted to mean that all of the assets with the exception of the the season ticket revenues defined have been released. If this interpretation is correct, it would mean that Ibrox, Murray Park, and player contracts are no longer secured assets.’
Has this been confirmed? Agree, it is open to interpretation.
Surely ‘Released assets’, in this instance, refers to assets that have been released. There is no notification previously to suggest these ‘assets’ (ticket sales) have indeed been released, which brings it back to the original thought that it means everything else is still held, but the ‘released assets’.
‘smoke and mirrors’ me thinks?”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 7 318 5528 18 6/6/2011 12:46:0 The Black Knight 77 4 “JohnBhoy:
06/06/2011 at 12:35 pm………………
Taken from (wiki) ‘The majority of the cash used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, much of which were secured against the club’s assets, incurring interest payments of over £60 million per annum. The remainder came in the form of PIK loans, which were later sold to hedge funds. Manchester United is not liable for the PIKs. The PIKs are held by Red Football Joint Venture Ltd and are secured on that company’s shares in Red Football Ltd (and thus the club). If they are not repaid by 2017, the Glazers will almost certainly lose all their shares in Red Football Ltd (and the club) to hedge funds. The interest on these loans rolls up at 14.25% per annum. Despite this, the Glazers have not paid down any of the PIK loans in the 5 years they have owned the club. In January 2010, the club carried out a successful £500 million bond issue. As of March 2010 the PIKs stand at around £207 million.[1] The club also has a gross debt of £520 million with £45 million in annual interest payments.[2]
Manchester United fans opposed Glazer’s takeover of the club, particularly once they realised the level of debt that the club would have to take on after having been debt-free for so many years. Since 2005, the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust has been working on a way of returning ownership of the club to supporters; in 2010, they met with a group of wealthy Manchester United fans ‘ dubbed the ‘Red Knights’ ‘ to discuss a billion-pound takeover bid.’
I think you could be onto something JB.!!
This may force a share issue for the very existence of the club……..How many ‘Blue Knights’ are there????”

New Rangers Mystery: Is a deal in the works? 7 327 5537 27 6/6/2011 13:0:0 The Black Knight 77 5 “rangerstaxcase says:
06/06/2011 at 12:52 pm
Thanks RTC! Agree!
Keep up the good work!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 1 18 5649 18 6/6/2011 18:36:0 TheBlackKnight 14 1 “RTC
P6 part iii, item e
Is this the £2.7m? or the potential tax liability for the non payment of PAYE & NI as recently heard in the FTT?
If so, it points to an agreed scheme to pay tax to HMRC.
This could of course be a new agreement separate to the FFT, or could relate to the £2.7 tax liability noted in the annual report (half year)
I cannot see how it can relate to the FFT as it would negate all of the previous statements/ assurances in regard to winning the tax case.
The language certainly appears to be less ‘positive’ in regard to winning the case.
Could we see a share issue over the summer? If so will the ‘Loyal’ invest (gun to head)”

Rangers’ Circular Released 1 26 5658 26 6/6/2011 18:45:0 TheBlackKnight 14 2 “Sorry, Another noteworthy point is the option to buy out the other shareholders.
This has been ‘waived’ by the IBC.
Was this because:
1. the shares are worthless, or
2. there is no capital to purchase the shares, or
3. a combination of the above.
4. another ‘fantastic’ reason
Seems to me that a billionaire businessman, investing huge amounts of his own money in a football club he has loved and followed since a lad, would want full financial control to maximise any profit from future share issues or sale?(Tongue firmly in cheek!) 😉 ”

Rangers’ Circular Released 1 29 5663 29 6/6/2011 18:53:0 TheBlackKnight 14 3 “A question has to be asked in regard to the ‘released assets’.
We have to assume that this money, or promise to pay, exists. It cannot be included in a legal document in it’s mimetic form as possible future season tickets, therefore these sales have been transacted.
Who else is able to invest if 23,000 or so have already purchased their season tickets for the next 3years?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 1 49 5689 49 6/6/2011 19:22:0 TheBlackKnight 14 4 “rangerstaxcase says:
06/06/2011 at 7:04 pm
Thanks RTC.
Am I just reading too much into the statement.?
It clearly states in the release that TRFCG could not do such a thing until the debt is ‘waived’ or the borrowing (sums secured against the club) are principally for the benefit of the club???
P6 part iii, item (g)
Does this mean that the assumptions that the money for the tickets IS being used to fund RFC or pay the taxman????”

Rangers’ Circular Released 2 61 5702 11 6/6/2011 19:38:0 TheBlackKnight 14 5 “Blankety Blank Whyte Cheque Book but where’s the pen?:
06/06/2011 at 7:30 pm
The Ghorilla Room?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 2 69 5713 19 6/6/2011 19:59:0 TheBlackKnight 14 6 “TheBlackKnight says:
06/06/2011 at 7:22 pm
rangerstaxcase says:
06/06/2011 at 7:04 pm
Thanks RTC.
Am I just reading too much into the statement.?
It clearly states in the release that TRFCG could not do such a thing until the debt is ‘waived’ or the borrowing (sums secured against the club) are principally for the benefit of the club???
P6 part iii, item (g)
Does this mean that the assumptions that the money for the tickets IS being used to fund RFC or pay the taxman????
Sorry RTC, the penny hs just dropped (only took a couple of days)
The MG05s and the statement released today clearly (to my mind) shows that TRFCGLtd have sold 23,000 season tickets to Ticketus for the next 3-4 years to release of funds.
Simples!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 2 72 5718 22 6/6/2011 20:12:0 TheBlackKnight 14 7 “MB. !!!!!!
Nice spot!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 2 79 5727 29 6/6/2011 20:31:0 TheBlackKnight 14 8 “rangerstaxcase says:
06/06/2011 at 8:15 pm
‘Great spot. So, they could not get even a majority of the board to agree?
Greig, McClelland, King, Bain, & McIntyre refused to sign off? (even if suspended from their jobs, Bain & McIntyre will still have a vote).
Nice work Mr. Whyte.’
RTC, I may be wrong but I don’t think that is what MB is alluding to nor is it what it means.
The directors noted on P 3 are Whyte, Betts and Ellis. It appears that they take no responsibility for the ‘terms’ outlined in Part iii
If it all goes wrong, blame the lawyers!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 2 83 5732 33 6/6/2011 20:40:0 TheBlackKnight 14 9 “What’s the chance of getting hold of the ‘side letter’ outlined in Part iii?
Any terms outlined in this public document could be scuppered by that letter and it’s content.
It also refers to things being enforceable by the club and vendor (MIH)
Why?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 2 94 5744 44 6/6/2011 20:52:0 TheBlackKnight 14 10 “MB, 🙂
Or perhaps the ‘Three Stooges’ 😮
I think again it is unclear but it states 90 days from the determination of the case. Once a decision has been reached.
90 days is however just about right for the initial theories of a super injunction being already in place in regard to the result of the case (allegedly finished the day before Whyte took over – I think) and the start of the new season.?????
I’m just a natural conspiricist at heart!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 2 96 5746 46 6/6/2011 20:54:0 TheBlackKnight 14 11 “Lord Wobbly says:
06/06/2011 at 8:45 pm
As a legal document, yes! Unless they are saying they do not take responsibility for the outcome? The drafting? The spelling?
:/”

Rangers’ Circular Released 3 135 5786 35 6/6/2011 22:16:0 TheBlackKnight 14 12 “http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-13675873
Douglas Fraser putting his his head above the parapet!”

Reflections on Craig Whyte’s Obsessive Secrecy 1 3 5585 3 6/6/2011 16:40:0 The Black Knight 3 1 “RTC (obviously) we all thanks you of that I am sure, ‘Dom & JohnBhoy’…………………. excellent work!!
The saga continues………….
Footnote: I understand Rangers have a ‘qualifier’ prior to the group stages of the CL. Should they not make it through that, it is , how would one put it? a big fall!!!!! (noting your comments above)”

Reflections on Craig Whyte’s Obsessive Secrecy 1 5 5587 5 6/6/2011 16:44:0 The Black Knight 3 2 “Darkfish says:
06/06/2011 at 4:35 pm
I recall something about the takeover and that The Whyte Knight need not notify the IBC as he now controls the company (we think) and the IBC is no longer!
He, (or who ever owns/ controls Rangers Football Club Group Plc Ltd 2011…. etc etc….) does however after a takeover have to notify the shareholders within a certain timeframe. I understood that to be by the year end (being 30th June)
I have been wrong before though!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 8 357 6012 7 7/6/2011 22:40:0 TheBlackKnight 14 13 “Slightly off piste (like many others), but i was pondering the fact that Rangers are longer a company registered in Scotland.
‘There are separate companies registries for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A company registered in England and Wales must maintain a registered office in England and Wales and cannot move its registered office to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Incorporation Services Limited can provide a registered office in the country where the company is registered, if required.
A company registered in England and Wales is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales (it is a single jurisdiction) so that any litigation concerning, say the management of the company or petition to have it wound up, etc. must go to the appropriate court of that jurisdiction. Scotland is a separate jurisdiction and the equivalent rules apply to Scottish companies.
On the other hand, there is no legal rule to prevent an English company having a place of business (even its only place of business) in Scotland, or a Scottish company doing the same in England, but it must maintain a registered office in the country in which it is registered, which may be inconvenient.’
Couple of questions! (or three….four)
1. Can RFC (whatever incarnation) be a ‘company’ registered in England but play in the SPL? (above states they can but what are the SPL rules?£
2. Does this give The Whyte Knight the opportunity to see out any creditors or potential litigation in the English courts?
3. For the paltry sum that it costs, why wasn’t Whyte’s company (TRFCGLTD) registered in Scotland?
4. The shares are in a PLC, NOT a Ltd company! Whyte’s company has limited liability, not Rangers FC.
I may have missed something or the above is totally irrelevant, ie TRFCGLTD own RFC, which is registered??
Number 4 puzzles me though given a lot of the discussions.
Anyone?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 10 452 6107 2 8/6/2011 16:59:0 TheBlackKnight 14 14 “Ok!
This has been bugging me for some time and perhaps with my (very) limited understanding of law and financial law in particular, …….. So here goes,
has anyone else drawn the similarity between the ‘players’ involved, the companies that are now in place as ‘trusted advisors’, the assignation of the debt and the fact that whilst the MG05s form is poorly drafted (confusing as to what has been released and what is still held as a floating charge) the form is signed by what appears to be a ‘P Betts’.
The part with his apparent signature is reserved for the person who either is or represents the creditor. (?)
I could understand if the MG05s was released with a clear indication of what has been released. Further I could understand fully if the form had the new ‘owners’ of the floating charges (had the debt been paid off). But the form relates to a debt held with Lloyds(BoS) and is signed by someone authorised to do so.
Simple question………. Are Rangers already in administration?”
Rangers’ Circular Released 10 453 6108 3 8/6/2011 17:11:0 TheBlackKnight 14 15 “Is it good news that the Daily Record/ Sunday Mail is shedding half of it’s editorial staff?
Could ne considered, that’s where poor journalism gets you!
Interesting the ‘journalism’ will be centralised from the Mirror group. Maybe get some decent ‘unbiased’ reporting on the Celtic games 😉 ”

Rangers’ Circular Released 10 459 6114 9 8/6/2011 17:41:0 TheBlackKnight 14 16 “Easy jambo, I know I said I had limited financial savvy but I do know that legally a ‘creditor’ is the person or body loaning the money. TRFCGLTD and RFC are the debtors, surely?”
Rangers’ Circular Released 10 460 6115 10 8/6/2011 17:45:0 TheBlackKnight 14 17 “Or should I say ‘trespasser’ 😉 ”

Rangers’ Circular Released 10 497 6152 47 8/6/2011 21:5:0 TheBlackKnight 14 18 “the Don Dionisio says:
08/06/2011 at 6:22 pm
BoS are out of it, and long gone. Their floating charge has been assigned to TRFCG Ltd and that’s why Betts signed.
the Don Dionisio says:
08/06/2011 at 7:24 pm
RTC,
I think it is simply because it is a private deed that need not be filed to be effective. Intimation to the debtor makes it effective.
rangerstaxcase says:
08/06/2011 at 7:08 pm
Don
Just as a clarification of detail, can you explain why the BoS are still listed as the holder of the charge?
I assume this is just a technicality to avoid accusations that the agreement was novated or otherwise cancelled.
Re: the above.
Assuming the MG05s is not a fake, why is the document signed by a Director of TRFGltd and a Director of RFC, (P Betts) claiming he has authority over the release from the floating charge.
He cannot sign the document on behalf of BoS. He does not represent BoS (Lloyds)
If the debt was indeed assigned to TRFCGLtd then the release from the floating charge, would by law, have to relate to the ‘owner’ of the floating charge (the creditor) not the debtor? Therefore the form should have the details of TRFCGLtd as the ‘Chargee’?
The company (RangersFC) is a plc. It has shares and shareholders. Therefore a ‘private’ deal cannot be struck as one could with a private limited company without the shareholders approval, yes?
So why, assuming the document isn’t fake, has P Betts signed the document as the person who is entitled to release charges or assets from the charge? Why, if he has that power, did he not release all the charges?
Like I said, not legally or financially minded, but not daft!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 10 499 6154 49 8/6/2011 21:31:0 TheBlackKnight 14 19 “rangerstaxcase says:
08/06/2011 at 8:08 pm
An interesting bit of background information for anyone interested in learning about Receivership in Scotland:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/insmanual/ins1900.htm
If you read the documentation RTC, could it be read that Rangers are currently in receivership ?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 11 520 6175 20 8/6/2011 22:41:0 TheBlackKnight 14 20 “I am going out on a limb here,……(a flesh wound I have had many a time)……..I now firmly believe that Rangers ARE currently in administrative receivership !
RTC, next thread should ask that very question (if it is of value?)”

Rangers’ Circular Released 11 530 6185 30 8/6/2011 23:2:0 TheBlackKnight 14 21 “Lord Wobbly says:
08/06/2011 at 10:46 pm
TBK. Can you expand in a sort of ‘Rangers are already in receivership for dummies’ kind of way?
Keep in mind phrases like ‘assignment of indebtedness’
Keep in mind the background of the ‘players’ in all of this.
Keep in mind (assuming it is a verifiable and accurate document ) the MG05s
Keep in mind the money owed to Lloyds and any potential tax liability
Keep in mind that PBetts signed (allegedly) a document that releases assets from a floating charge held by BoS (Lloyds)
Refer to my post on previous page………
Then read the link as set up by RTC to the HMRC site
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/insmanual/ins1900.htm”

Rangers’ Circular Released 11 536 6191 36 8/6/2011 23:27:0 TheBlackKnight 14 22 “Lord wobbly and BlanketyBlank…….,
TheBlackKnight says:
08/06/2011 at 9:05 pm
the Don Dionisio says:
08/06/2011 at 6:22 pm
BoS are out of it, and long gone. Their floating charge has been assigned to TRFCG Ltd and that’s why Betts signed.
rangerstaxcase says:
08/06/2011 at 7:08 pm
Don
Just as a clarification of detail, can you explain why the BoS are still listed as the holder of the charge?
I assume this is just a technicality to avoid accusations that the agreement was novated or otherwise cancelled.
the Don Dionisio says:
08/06/2011 at 7:24 pm
RTC,
I think it is simply because it is a private deed that need not be filed to be effective. Intimation to the debtor makes it effective.
Re: the above.
Assuming the MG05s is not a fake, why is the document signed by a Director of TRFGltd and a Director of RFC, (P Betts) claiming he has authority over the release from the floating charge.
He cannot sign the document on behalf of BoS. He does not represent BoS (Lloyds)
If the debt was indeed assigned to TRFCGLtd then the release from the floating charge, would by law, have to relate to the ‘owner’ of the floating charge (the creditor) not the debtor? Therefore the form should have the details of TRFCGLtd as the ‘Chargee’?
The company (RangersFC) is a plc. It has shares and shareholders. Therefore a ‘private’ deal cannot be struck as one could with a private limited company without the shareholders approval, yes?
So why, assuming the document isn’t fake, has P Betts signed the document as the person who is entitled to release charges or assets from the charge? Why, if he has that power, did he not release all the charges?
Like I said, not legally or financially minded, but not daft!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 12 560 6215 10 9/6/2011 9:36:0 The Black Knight 113 1 “Lloyd S Bank. says:
09/06/2011 at 9:01 am
Lloyd, the only ‘beef’ I have with your comment is that you ‘assume’ Rangers are the ‘Creditor’.
It’s a fair assumption.
The debt however as we all know has been ‘assigned’. There is no evidence to suggest (or confirmation from Rangers to say otherwise) that the debt is now paid off. It has been assigned. A term often used in administrative receivership/ liquidation etc.
The MG05s troubled me from first reading. It is no doubt poorly drafted. All of the language used so far has been cleverly designed (IMO) not to alert anyone to the prospect of administrative receivership. Even the circular released was very guarded.
They key for me was the alleged signed MG05s. Signed by P Betts as being the person ‘authorised’ to sign on behalf of the creditor or ‘chargee’, in this case (as the form clearly states) being the BoS (Lloyds).
To my mind, the most likely instance this can happen is for a company, lets say TRFCGltd as an example, is to be ‘appointed’ by the ‘chargee’ (Lloyds) of the floating charge in administrative receivership.
I believe that may answer many of the questions on here.
This way I see that the business can continue as best it can whilst creditors monies are protected. (Lloyds and HMRC)
The confusion over the ‘released assets’ may become clearer in the coming weeks.
Perhaps the release of assets (ticket sales) etc is simply just to to pay any tax liability? Tax liability I mean £24m initial bill and thereafter any agreed sum to meet penalty charges and interest.
does anyone read the Edinburgh Gazette? Its where they post information about companies, notices, insolvency, receivership etc etc………
http://www.edinburgh-gazette.co.uk/issues/26936/supplements/234”

Rangers’ Circular Released 16 789 6452 39 11/6/2011 16:0:0 TheBlackKnight 14 23 “When did Rick Mayal buy Rangers ? ;/”

Rangers’ Circular Released 17 808 6474 8 12/6/2011 13:18:0 TheBlackKnight 14 24 “http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/insolvencyprofessionandlegislation/research/corpdocs/AdministrativeReceivershipandAdministration.pdf
I think that this makes very interesting reading.”

Rangers’ Circular Released 17 816 6483 16 13/6/2011 9:33:0 The Black Knight 113 2 “Hello Duggie73,
It was more just as an interesting read. This was a paper prepared before they changed the law. The rules certainly appear to be a bit tighter.
The post from Paulsatim was also very interesting. http://soccerbusinessworld.com/uefa/hmrc-on-warpath/
Also it would seem HMRC ‘got lucky’ with the National Westminster Bank Plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd. This may be the test case where Rangers fall on their sword (if this is a route they are attempting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re_Spectrum_Plus_Ltd”

Rangers’ Circular Released 17 827 6495 27 13/6/2011 18:0:0 TheBlackKnight 14 25 “Hi Duggie73,
Sorry, should have been clearer.
The Spectrum case was a test case in which ‘floating’ assets were ‘redefined’.
Should the case arise where Rangers claim that the assets, let’s say for the purposes of this discussion was season ticket money, it appears these could be redefined as fixed assets. (if I’m understanding the paper correctly)
That means they can be redefined as fixed for when the loan was taken out.
Therefore (in simple terms) it appears it would be a very difficult position for Rangers, potentially releasing season ticket money, to argue that this was not a security.
The insolvency link, again was only for speculative interest, but does appear however to add weight (to my mind) that they may already be in an administrative receivership position. That could easily have been ‘arranged’ with RFC, Murray and Lloyds during the due diligence period.
Ref: Document MG05s signed by P Betts (as the chargee) but the debt relates to BoS (Lloyds) floating charge/ security. If the debt had been cleared, the document would have had the ‘new co’ as the Chargee which P Betts would be entitled to sign.
The circular from TRFCGLtd (registered at Collyers address) clearly states the indebtedness has been ‘assigned’ (transferred) to TRFCGLtd. It also states that the other shares are rendered effectively worthless due to the purchase of the company for £1 cash.
Only speculation mind ( un- informed ). There are far more intriguing and ‘informed’ opinions on here however.
😉 ”

Rangers’ Circular Released 17 829 6497 29 13/6/2011 18:12:0 TheBlackKnight 14 26 “http://company-formation-registration-ltd-uk.com/life-company-ltd/charges-mortgages-scotland.php
Just another point to add to the mix. If TRFCGLtd (or Wavetower) had purchased the indebtedness from Lloyds, they would have to notify Companies House.
If I am correct, I cannot recall seeing any such documentation.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 17 830 6498 30 13/6/2011 19:13:0 TheBlackKnight 14 27 “http://www.unquoted-analyst.co.uk/companies/365/rangers-football-club
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=RFC:PZ
http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824
Doesn’t take a genius to work out the correlation between the release of the circular and the freefall of the stock. Or does it 🙂 ”

Rangers’ Circular Released 17 832 6500 32 13/6/2011 19:39:0 TheBlackKnight 14 28 “Tomtom,
I understand it would still have to be notified to companies house and the Stock Market .
Unless someone can direct me otherwise…. I haven’t seen anything.”

Rangers’ Circular Released 17 839 6507 39 13/6/2011 22:32:0 TheBlackKnight 14 29 “What cash crisis? Has he lost the key to the ‘WARCHEST’ ?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 17 846 6516 46 13/6/2011 23:23:0 TheBlackKnight 14 30 “Fixed assets not intended to be sold:
‘nor is it the intention of The Rangers FC Group to redeploy any of the fixed assets ofthe Club;’ However, as we have been discussing, this does not include season ticket sales. This seems to be a confirmation of our interpretation of the MG05s filing last week. Rangers’ future season tickets revenues can be sold for cash now.
RTC?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 19 939 6612 39 15/6/2011 11:21:0 TheBlackKnight 14 31 “Adam says:
15/06/2011 at 10:02 am
Just a small point to ponder Adam. If you say, or your interpretation of, the MG05s is true, why was it signed by P Betts on behalf of Lloyds (BoS)?
If TRFCGLtd (Wavetower) owned the debt it would have been their name on it, not BoS!
Administrative Recievership is only what I can conclude from that document regardless of the poor and ambiguous drafting.
Is that why the so called reports have been pulled?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 21 1004 6679 4 16/6/2011 8:17:0 The Black Knight 113 3 “how about……………… ‘ARE RANGERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE RECEIVERSHIP?'”
Rangers’ Circular Released 21 1005 6680 5 16/6/2011 9:1:0 tomtom 47 39 “Reference the season ticket no’s. Could it be a simple as the time frame for the repayments. So here goes:
If Rangers borrow starting in August they would be paying interest from that date until the following years season ticket sale in June 2012. The following June they sell another batch of season tickets but the interest is charged over the full year. Same scenario in 2013-14. In season 2014-15 the loan is satisfied when these season tickets are sold so less interest payment are due hence the need for less of a security
Just a thought.”

Rangers’ Circular Released 21 1013 6688 13 16/6/2011 12:40:0 The Black Knight 113 4 “Lloyd S Bank. says:
16/06/2011 at 12:06 pm
‘Could they really have gone into administrative receivership and kept that quiet’
I believe the short answer is yes. I posted comments on this weeks ago. Nothing to my mind has changed.
Plagiarized answer is:
‘Administrative receivership is a procedure in the United Kingdom, whereby a creditor can enforce security against a company’s assets in an effort to obtain repayment of the secured debt.
It used to be the most popular method of enforcement by secured creditors, but recent legislative reform in many jurisdictions has reduced its significance considerably in certain countries.
Administrative receivership differs from simple receivership in that an administrative receiver is appointed over all of the assets and undertaking of the company.
This means that an administrative receiver can normally only be appointed by the holder of a floating charge.
* (Lloyds / BoS if we are to believe the signature for the MG05s) *
Because of this unusual role, insolvency legislation usually grants wider powers to administrative receivers, but also controls the exercise of those powers to try to mitigate potential prejudice to unsecured creditors.
Characteristically an administrative receiver will be an accountant with considerable experience of insolvency matters.’
Remember the ‘ASSIGNED’ debt!!!!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 21 1014 6689 14 16/6/2011 12:47:0 The Black Knight 113 5 “also………..’Administrative receivership still forms part of modern insolvency practice. Companies that get into financial difficulty today may well have security packages that were created before 15 September 2003, a situation likely to remain common for some years.
Enforcement is also a significant aspect of the situations where administrative receivership is still permitted – for example, the ability to take control of the entirety of the assets is important in structuring insolvency-remote special purpose companies that issue securities or operate infrastructure projects.
In common law jurisdictions outside of the United Kingdom, administrative receivership remains alive and well. A number of offshore jurisdictions market transaction structures to banks on the basis that they still retain the freedom to appoint administrative receivers in those jurisdictions.
Because of their unique role, insolvency legislation usually confers wide powers upon administrative receivers under applicable insolvency law (which will usually be concurrent with powers granted under the security document).
However, the corollary is that administrative receivers are usually required under applicable legislation to file reports in relation to the period of their receivership.
section 48 of the Insolvency Act 1986, requiring reports to be filed at Companies House within 3 months of the END of the receivership”
Rangers’ Circular Released 21 1015 6690 15 16/6/2011 12:47:0 The Black Knight 113 6 “wow! 1000 comments!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 21 1022 6697 22 16/6/2011 13:51:0 The Black Knight 113 7 “Lloyd S Bank. says:
16/06/2011 at 1:09 pm
Also, would existing shareholders not be informed of this. It is something which fundamentally effects their investment, Shirley.
Firstly. Don’t call me Shirley!……….. drumroll – symbol !!!!!! 😉
Were they not notified by the MG05s and the circular?
OnandOnandOnand says:
16/06/2011 at 1:31 pm
Thanks O+O+O, I already knew about the Edinburgh Gazette, I posted the links last week. I pointed to the fact that there has been lots of activity on that front regarding Rangers and the various companies.
So what you are saying is that there is NO WAY, they could be in ‘administrative receivership’, despite the signing of the MG05s on behalf of Lloyds / BoS by P Betts and the notification (and circular) that stated the debt had been assigned to Wavetower (TRFCGLtd)?
My earlier post also stated that the notification period is within 3months of the END of the process. Is the law wrong? or have I misinterpreted?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 21 1024 6699 24 16/6/2011 14:4:0 The Black Knight 113 8 “‘Administrative receivers are entitled to obtain statements in relation to the company’s affairs from various present and previous directors and employees.
The receiver must obtain statements, prepare a report and file it with the Registrar of Companies
Unsecured creditors must be sent a copy or be notified as to its publication and how they can access the report.
The report must contain a summary of the statement of affairs and the administrator’s comments.
It should set out the circumstances of the receivership, the disposals or intended disposals of company assets, the amount owing to the debenture holder and preferential creditors and the amounts, if any, likely to be available to other creditors.
The receiver need not include information which would prejudice his functions. ‘
How can a report be lodged if the financial directors have been suspended ‘pending investigation for financial impropriety’ and the information in regard to potential tax liability are not realised (they are appealing the tax bill and have said there is no tax bill – ‘it is a tax investigation’)?
Just a thought mind!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 21 1027 6702 27 16/6/2011 14:33:0 The Black Knight 113 9 “tonybananas says:
16/06/2011 at 2:20 pm
TB
I think it is a recent position ( I believe installed during/ toward the end of Lloyds time) to ‘control’ the finer points of legal/ financial exchanges for players contracts and dealing with agents etc. ie it was under the banks control”

Rangers’ Circular Released 22 1057 6732 7 16/6/2011 20:34:0 TheBlackKnight 14 32 “Duggie73 says:
16/06/2011 at 6:24 pm
TheBlackKnight-
……,,, Did OnandOn convince you that a receivership has defos not happened?
In short No. From what i understand administrative receivership, as pointed out previously, is very different from receivership.
Perhaps O O O could confirm why the debt was assigned, a floating charge released (held prior to 2003) and all the players have that very background.
All I asked was perhaps RTC could pose the question. It’s very easy to say NO WAY, with no substantiation.
Perhaps O O O is better placed than I in such matters, but is it easy to say NO YOU CAN’T DO THAT to a child with no explanation as to WHY NOT?
It may help to focus on why all of the parties involved are specialists in insolvency and administrative receivership. Given their expertise and the circumstances Rangers find themselves in I would certainly like to know for sure, NO WAY!
Bearing in mind, the assignation of the debt, the sale of the club for £1 and the signature of P Betts as the Chargee (or acting on behalf of the chargee) on a form that relates to the release of (or not) a floating charge that was held by the BoS (Lloyds) and may relate to future season ticket sales.
Recap:
1. A club that has been for sale for 5 or 6 years. No takers until AE carries out due diligence but DM does not agree to the takeover despite offers of £6-£8m being touted for the majority share.
2. A bank trying to extract itself from an impossible position and trying to recoup it’s debt (said at the time to be around £28m) prior to November 2011? They even appoint a banker on the board.
3. The major shareholder (owner) sells club and assets for £1 (this under the governance of Lloyds, appointed by MIH, who incidentally are owed £650m by MIH)
4. A possible massive tax liability? Which incidentally Rangers are appealing but on the day that FFT appeared to be at an end, CW confirms he has bought the club.
5. Lock stock and barrell are sold to what appears to be AE business partner. CW. This deal is facilitated by a company set up by AE. (Wavetower)
6. Custodian of the club AJ ‘nodding’ when asked could Rangers go into receivership and warning real fans to be vigilant.
Yeah nothing in it really !”
Rangers’ Circular Released 22 1058 6734 8 16/6/2011 20:43:0 TheBlackKnight 14 33 “Maybe I should have said ‘are they (moving very quickly toward / making preparations for…) administrative receivership’ rather than ‘IN’!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 22 1060 6736 10 16/6/2011 22:11:0 TheBlackKnight 14 34 “Agreed Duggie,. Perhaps a shoulder to cry on….
All I was suggesting is that they could be either ‘in’ or ‘in’ the process AR.
If they are not in it now, then all the ‘moves’ of late could be interpreted as pointing to it (IMHO).
It may not necessarily be a bad thing for Rangers?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 22 1065 6741 15 16/6/2011 22:52:0 TheBlackKnight 14 35 “Don, as none has answered (that I can see) can you clear up why PBetts signed the MG05s as the ‘chargee’, relating to a floating charge held by the BoS prior to 2003?
I’m no lawyer 😉 but surely it would have been signed by the bank or representative of the bank, thus releasing the charge.(to TRFCGLtd) I could understand if the release of the charge was signed by P Betts if the charge was held by TRFGCLtd
There has also been any formal documentation from the club other than the circular / statement to the Stock Market that the debt was ‘assigned’ to Wavetower (now TRFCGLtd)
Can you explain on non legal, non financial, laymans terms?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 23 1101 6777 1 17/6/2011 16:27:0 The Black Knight 113 10 “well said Duggie, agree!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 23 1105 6781 5 17/6/2011 19:59:0 TheBlackKnight 14 36 “the Don Dionisio 11.12pm
Many thanks Don,
I am still in the dark as to why PBetts signed the MG05s as the ‘chargee’, relating to a floating charge.
Like I said before, I could understand if the release of the charge was signed by P Betts if the charge was held by TRFGCLtd and their name and details were on the form.”
Rangers’ Circular Released 23 1106 6782 6 17/6/2011 20:15:0 TheBlackKnight 14 37 “Adam says:
17/06/2011 at 12:38 pm
Re: ‘The MG05s’
‘To this day, that still reads to me that the floating charge over the whole of the assets of the company excluding the detailed assets beneath the statement are the ‘property or undertaking which has been released from the charge’
Adam, if this is the case, and The Don is correct then the ‘released assets’ must be in the ownership of Lloyds.
Have Lloyds been given the season tickets sales for the next 4 years?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 23 1108 6784 8 17/6/2011 20:35:0 TheBlackKnight 14 38 “Burton,
If that is correct, then why release the MG05s signed by PBetts, that relates to a historic floating charge (except the ‘released assets{season tickets}’) held by BoS (Lloyds)?”

Rangers’ Circular Released 23 1111 6787 11 17/6/2011 21:22:0 TheBlackKnight 14 39 “Interesting!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 25 1220 6972 20 19/6/2011 14:20:0 TheBlackKnight 14 40 “It has not been denied that Rangers are not in or preparing for administrative receivership.
The debt has been ‘assigned’ to The Rangers Football Club Group Ltd (Wavetower)
Despite claims the debt had been paid outright to Lloyds, clearing a reported £18m-£23m debt. There is no evidence to suggest this is the case.
The floating charge over all of the assets has been released. A number of assets (being specific future ticket sales) have been retained as security.
This was signed by PBetts relating to a historical (prior to 2003) floating charge held over all of the assets.
The club has been for sale since an announcement to the Stock Market in 2006.
According to CW, The tax ‘investigation’ is ongoing and could take a number of years to resolve, despite this there are still assurances Rangers will win and yet a contingency, should they lose.
Rangers directors Johnson and Bain and the manager at the time, Smith, all categorically stated Lloyds Bank was running the club, controlling it’s spending and revenue. Despite this, Rangers were not in administration.
That would have been against the rules as set out by UEFA and the SPL. The bank even placed a financial controller on the board. The bank were running the club, but officially could not be seen to be running the club despite the club and the manager saying the bank was running the club.
Perhaps some should ask if Lloyds still have the debt, perhaps held by another? Perhaps an AR? Perhaps CW?
CW states that he reads this forum.
His assertion is that the comments are posted by idiots and are 99% wrong. They are way off the mark!
So ask yourself this CW, is the 1% A.R? No denial!”

Rangers’ Circular Released 25 1222 6975 22 19/6/2011 14:45:0 TheBlackKnight 14 41 “I’m sure gordon smith could afford to give his £1 back 🙂 ”
Reflections on Craig Whyte’s Obsessive Secrecy 6/6/2011 39 4 39 1 19 6/6/2011 16:28:0 TLPOG 6/6/2011 21:53:0 Duggie73

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 3 115 7018 15 19/6/2011 18:54:0 TheBlackKnight 51 1 “‘Apply Occam’s Razor ‘ the simplest explanation is most often the true one.’
Has anyone considered AR as the mechanism?
Could the Whyte Knight have been appointed (agreed by Lloyds in the ‘fakeover’) as the potential buyer of the club?
Could this point to the debt being assigned rather than cleared?
Could the MG05s be just that. If some on here are correct in their interpretation, back by DK comments, It still allows Lloyds to be a secured creditor.
Is AR the 1%?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 3 146 7049 46 19/6/2011 22:32:0 TheBlackKnight 51 2 “Duggie, re Ticketus, replace with Lloyds, then it makes things interesting (plausible)”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 4 169 7072 19 20/6/2011 2:24:0 Duggie73 47 18 “I don’t understand a lot of what I say either. I’m more than willing to make a fool of myself trying again though.
Lloyds have SDM over a barrel with the £18mil debt in conjunction with a tax bill which will be pursued against this, or any phoenix version of Rangers, making the running of such a club an unacceptable business proposition. This leads to SDM unsuccessfully attempting to sell the club for a number of years, as due dilligence on the part of prospective buyers always leads them to snub the proposition.
During the time of looking at potential options SDM or Lloyds or a conjunction of both come up with the scheme of administrative receivership as being a way of obtaining full recompense for secured creditors at the expense of continued existence of the club. This scheme however does require that monies are obtained in advance against ticket sales, as the only viable way of introducing more ready cash into the club. Whyte ,as either the deviser of said scheme, or as you say Lloyds arms’-length debt collector is put in place as a result of the bank’s increasing anxiety that were Rangers’ assets allowed to continue on their current trend(depreciation of Ibrox, player contracts running down, CL money being a must for the continued day to day business of the club) the value of the club’s total assets would not necessarily cover the whole value of the debt and in exchange for the deal nominally putting Whyte in charge, Murray has some measure of the MIH debt wiped.
However, the Ticketus deal is vital to this extraction of secured debt plus profit to work.
OK- that would be my synopsis- and I’ll say once more for the record, I’m better at paranoia than accountancy.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 4 176 7079 26 20/6/2011 9:20:0 The Black Knight 58 1 “Duggie73 says:
20/06/2011 at 2:24 am
I’d say you were almost there.!”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 4 178 7081 28 20/6/2011 9:41:0 The Black Knight 58 2 “Ray Charles says:
20/06/2011 at 1:14 am
I think that is fair analogy! I particularly like the car salesman reference 😉
‘are you saying that, at the outset, Lloyds assigned the debt to Whyte’ YES! That is clear in the circular. The debt was assigned to ‘Wavetower’. A convenient Name. A luxury development in the Middle East funded by ‘Oil Royalty’. Once the deal does through the name changes to the less than glamourous The Rangers Football Club Group Ltd. (note the LTD)
‘in much the same way as a car finance firm would assign a troublesome debt to a debt collection agency?’ NO! Lloyds could have done that already. Remember they had been in control of the club for almost 2 years. The entire debt agreement (loan) was due to be paid off/ reviewed by November.
‘(Whyte) doesn’t actually own the fixed assets’ YES! The fixed assets, according to those in the know, have been release from the floating charge. This would mean that they are now fixed. To what, we shall wait and see. Perhaps it is the future season ticket sales being used as security?
‘the debt is secured against but are legally assigned the right to recover the money owed’. YES!
‘Lloyds still retain the rights to the fixed assets/floating charge’ YES!
‘and Whyte has not actually paid them £18m as has been reported.’ YES! The debt has been ‘assigned’. Scots Law (formerly) the transfer, esp by an insolvent debtor, of property in trust for the benefit of his creditors
He is instead acting as an arms-length debt collector for Lloyds. – YES!
I believe the key to all of this, despite many posters on here shouting down the possible prospect of AR, (‘NO WAY’) is that no one has came up with an actual viable reason to explain the current moves by Whyte and effectively Lloyds/ MIH that appear to be the foundations for his mechanism.
P.S. I am not the ‘Leak/ or Mole’…….”

20/6/2011 9:41:0 The Black Knight 58 2 “Ray Charles says:
20/06/2011 at 1:14 am
I think that is fair analogy! I particularly like the car salesman reference 😉
‘are you saying that, at the outset, Lloyds assigned the debt to Whyte’ YES! That is clear in the circular. The debt was assigned to ‘Wavetower’. A convenient Name. A luxury development in the Middle East funded by ‘Oil Royalty’. Once the deal does through the name changes to the less than glamourous The Rangers Football Club Group Ltd. (note the LTD)
‘in much the same way as a car finance firm would assign a troublesome debt to a debt collection agency?’ NO! Lloyds could have done that already. Remember they had been in control of the club for almost 2 years. The entire debt agreement (loan) was due to be paid off/ reviewed by November.
‘(Whyte) doesn’t actually own the fixed assets’ YES! The fixed assets, according to those in the know, have been release from the floating charge. This would mean that they are now fixed. To what, we shall wait and see. Perhaps it is the future season ticket sales being used as security?
‘the debt is secured against but are legally assigned the right to recover the money owed’. YES!
‘Lloyds still retain the rights to the fixed assets/floating charge’ YES!
‘and Whyte has not actually paid them £18m as has been reported.’ YES! The debt has been ‘assigned’. Scots Law (formerly) the transfer, esp by an insolvent debtor, of property in trust for the benefit of his creditors
He is instead acting as an arms-length debt collector for Lloyds. – YES!
I believe the key to all of this, despite many posters on here shouting down the possible prospect of AR, (‘NO WAY’) is that no one has came up with an actual viable reason to explain the current moves by Whyte and effectively Lloyds/ MIH that appear to be the foundations for his mechanism.
P.S. I am not the ‘Leak/ or Mole’…….”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 4 186 7089 36 20/6/2011 12:10:0 The Black Knight 58 3 “Gaz,
like I said before, perhaps all of this is readying ( ‘oiling the mechanism’ ) for ‘the possible prospect of AR’.
All I am stating is that Rangers shareholders should be ‘alive’ to the prospect.
Just my opinion though. Others do clearly feel differently.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 5 225 7129 25 20/6/2011 19:38:0 TheBlackKnight 51 3 “Just a small pedantic point. At no point have I seen a direct quote from the Whyte Knight that the debt has been;
1) cleared 2) paid back 3) gifted.
What has been said is that the debt has been ‘assigned’, and should an ‘insolvency event’ happen within 90 days of the final decision of the tax case/ hearing/ investigation occur the debt would be waived at his discretion.
That could be out of the goodness of his heart or because there will be heehaw to pay it back with.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 6 266 7170 16 20/6/2011 23:57:0 TheBlackKnight 51 4 “‘Never will those who wage war tire of deception.,
I will force the enemy to take our strength for weakness, and our weakness for strength, and thus will turn his strength into weakness.'”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 7 315 7222 15 21/6/2011 19:46:0 TheBlackKnight 51 5 “Perhaps the Whyte Knight’s lack of transparency can be summed up thus;
‘One defends when his strength is inadaquate, he attacks when it is abundant’
‘99% crap’ seems an appropriate defence!”
Whyte gets ever more mysterious 7 316 7223 16 21/6/2011 19:54:0 TheBlackKnight 51 6 “Gaz says:
21/06/2011 at 7:44 pm
When was the last time someone called an interview or posted the question to DD. He, amongst others, have been a fantastic custodian to the club. There is transparency from board level down. Ask and you shall receive !
Even when charmingly pressed by a young female reporter outside Hampden he said, ‘(Neil) he will be here for a long time’. This in answer to whether Neil Lennon would be staying on as manager.
Albeit a rolling contract that must be cognisant of (current) events and other directors/ shareholders opinions.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 7 344 7251 44 21/6/2011 22:25:0 TheBlackKnight 51 7 “http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=689
What’s not transparent or clear about this?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 8 366 7273 16 21/6/2011 23:25:0 TheBlackKnight 51 8 “Barney, seems your Swiss friend has, from what i can see, missed (ignored) the biggest story in Scottish Football financial history? Wonder why?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 8 370 7277 20 21/6/2011 23:37:0 TheBlackKnight 51 9 “Gaz,
RFC, as I understand, did not release accounts for a number of years under the tenure of MIH. There may have been good reason for this or there may have been no tax returns?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 8 377 7284 27 21/6/2011 23:58:0 TheBlackKnight 51 10 “Adam, then they should accurately show the EBTs?/ Tax payments?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 8 381 7288 31 22/6/2011 0:10:0 TheBlackKnight 51 11 “Adam, thanks for clearing that up!”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 10 454 7362 4 22/6/2011 18:0:0 TheBlackKnight 51 12 “Lloyd S Bank. says:
22/06/2011 at 2:38 pm
‘I believe the debt has been paid off.
Craig Whyte has said Rangers do not know anything to the Bank. Therefore it has either been moved elsewhere or paid off.’
Yes, the WhyteKnight did say that Rangers Football Club no longer are indebted to Lloyds. That does not mean that The Rangers Football Club Group Ltd (who were assigned the debt) are not.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 10 463 7371 13 22/6/2011 18:33:0 TheBlackKnight 51 13 “Re: MG01s.
Haven’t seen anything notified on London Stock Market.?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 10 483 7392 33 22/6/2011 23:0:0 TheBlackKnight 51 14 “P12 is an interesting read
http://www.key2law.co.uk/articles/pdfs/setoff.pdf”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 10 499 7414 49 23/6/2011 9:22:0 The Black Knight 58 4 “On and On…..,
sorry meant p11 (assignment)”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 559 7483 9 24/6/2011 10:40:0 The Black Knight 58 5 “Ray Charles says:
24/06/2011 at 2:37 am
Bang on my friend. That is what I have been trying to suggest for some time. I believe Duggie73 was the only one to run with the prospect.
‘This is probably total nonsense and I admit I am a financial simpleton compared to many on this site.’
However, it makes sense to me TOO!”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 592 7518 42 24/6/2011 19:58:0 TheBlackKnight 51 15 “It’s all quite interesting isn’t it! 😉 ”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 595 7521 45 24/6/2011 21:10:0 TheBlackKnight 51 16 “‘In the context of contract law, rectification is a basis to apply to court to amend a document in the event that the document does not reflect the agreement of the parties. Most types of mercantile documents may be rectified including commercial contracts, transfers of shares, conveyances, deeds and leases.
The requirements of rectification are that there is an agreement prior to the preparation of the document; there is strong, irrefragable evidence that document does not reflect the agreement reached between the parties by mistake; the document does not record the common intention of the parties; a party’s awareness of the error in the document will not of itself prevent rectification.
Rectification allows the correction of the recording of the agreement in writing rather than the agreement itself.
Where a party has involved themselves in SHARP PRACTICE or their CONSCIENCE should be affected by the practice, rectification has been made available.
Oral evidence may be admitted to prove the subjective intentions of the parties at the time of the contract. When an order for rectification is made, the court will usually order specific performance of the amended contract.’
Sharp Practice – legal usage; cunning, or deceptive, sneaky behaviour……..,,,
Hmmmmmmmmm?
Now, the question(s) has to be asked,
1. Is the removal/amendment due to an honest mistake? Was the document so poorly drafted or positioned by these high flying professionals that it no longer reflected the intentions of the agreement?
2. Did the document no longer reflect the agreement between the parties?
3. Is someone guilty of SHARP PRACTICE, or has this site got the better of their CONSCIENCE?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 597 7524 47 24/6/2011 22:30:0 TheBlackKnight 51 17 “http://company-formation-registration-ltd-uk.com/registrars-rules-and-powers/powers-to-amend-the-register.php
Attention is drawn to item 12. (section 1096 of companies act) of the above and it’s reference at point 6. of the petition.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 12 600 7528 50 24/6/2011 23:20:0 TheBlackKnight 51 18 “Hi EJ,
There are numerous possibilities of which that is indeed one.
‘that derives from anything that the court has declared to be invalid or ineffective, or to have been done without the authority of the company or LLP; or
that a court declares to be factually inaccurate, or to be derived from something factually inaccurate, or forged; and
that the court directs to be removed from the register.
However the court cannot use this power to rectify where the court has other specific powers to deal with the matter, for example, under provisions of Part 15 of the Act relating to the revision of defective accounts, or sections 873 and 888 (rectification of the register of charges).’
One could say that perhaps Lloyds did not agree? Or HMRC? Or as I said before, an ‘honest’ mistake, signed by P Betts on behalf of Lloyds?
Very interesting indeed!”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 13 603 7533 3 25/6/2011 13:52:0 TheBlackKnight 51 19 “RTC,(appreciate you are away for a while, but may be useful to consider this – if you are dipping in now and then)
You wrote in this thread,
‘So, we speculated that what in fact was intended was the opposite: that the MG05s was just a mangled document that would be corrected.’
If I understand the rules regarding correction of the document, (which could easily have been amended under section 888 of the Companies Act) why is 1096 referred to? Is this more than just a mangled and misleading document that required correction.
1096, refers to much more serious potentialities.
Could the document have been submitted as part of the ongoing tax case (investigation / FTT) and therefore can (has been instructed to) restrict from being amended?
Or have TRFCGLtd now sought an injunction to have it removed from public record? (but still holds)
On another matter does the rule 23.3 refer to the standard court procedure?
In this instance could rule 23, refer to this?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2002/516/pdfs/ssi_20020516_en.pdf”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 13 607 7537 7 26/6/2011 15:51:0 TheBlackKnight 51 20 “Short answer, Billy , is NO!”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 13 610 7540 10 26/6/2011 19:34:0 TheBlackKnight 51 21 “Goosy, again I can only assume that the monies put in by debenture holders is relatively small compared to the figures said to be owed to HMRC. I would also think that they cannot be used collectively. Therefore, unless someone has ‘personally’ put in over £24m then they will be very much down the list.
They may also have been given shares, which are pretty much close to worthless as things stand.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 13 620 7550 20 26/6/2011 21:51:0 TheBlackKnight 51 22 “Maybe the said letter is filed next to the players agreements not to pay back the EBT loans?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 13 645 7577 45 28/6/2011 9:25:0 The Black Knight 58 6 “Getting back on track (as this is not really a football forum) does anyone else see a connection in the recent price hike for tickets at Ibrox. Are they calling the shots?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 14 695 7632 45 3/7/2011 12:47:0 TheBlackKnight 51 23 “The last 10 posts or so, all assume the £18m has been paid. As far as I recall, the debt was ‘assigned’.
If the debt has not been cleared in full (substantially) to Lloyds then CW cannot be a secured creditor having only spent £1. If the debt has been assigned to Wavetower (TRFCGLtd) and a repayment structure in place (to Lloyds) would Lloyds not still remain a secured creditor status?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 14 698 7635 48 3/7/2011 13:37:0 TheBlackKnight 51 24 “JP,
As I recall, the entire outstanding debt, said at the time to be around £23m, was to be repaid to Lloyds by November 2011.
In this context, is it plausible that the debt ‘assigned’ could be renegotiated on better terms (ability to pay) by TRFCGLtd?
In short, could TRFCGLtd now owe Lloyds rather than RFC Plc.?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 14 700 7637 50 3/7/2011 14:20:0 TheBlackKnight 51 25 “Does that then preclude the possibility of AR? (either gearing up toward or beginning the process)
It makes no sense to me that Lloyds, who are almost totally government /publicly owned appear to have been complicit in possibly outdoing (assuming HMRC win) the government of substantial £millions, perhaps 10s£millions as their (HMRC) secured status is no longer.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 15 720 7662 20 7/7/2011 14:35:0 The Black Knight 58 7 “RTC?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 15 723 7668 23 7/7/2011 21:20:0 TheBlackKnight 51 26 “Perhaps the Whyte Knight could comment, as I understand he reads this blog, on the fall in capital share value since buying the company.
Since the takeover the value of RFC has dropped by £9m. Strange, given that the club is almost entirely owned by CW.”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 15 725 7670 25 8/7/2011 8:54:0 The Black Knight 58 8 “Adam, just to clarify, what you are saying is that the 10p ordinary shares (once valued at 32p) that were bought by CW for the princely sum of one Queen’s head, has had no effect on the share value to investors? The share value (company value) has dropped by almost 1/3.
So it is only CW shares that have been rendered almost worthless?”

Whyte gets ever more mysterious 15 730 7677 30 8/7/2011 19:35:0 TheBlackKnight 51 27 “I believe empirical data would show a direct link between lack of European football and the fall in share price, however it is worth noting you picked an absolute high. The fall us much less and has stabilised.
Rangers, in my opinion, could go into freefall, or stabilise should the go, or not go, on a euro run. (same would apply to Celtic)
It is indeed chilling to contemplate what could have happened had Rangers not won the last 3 (lucrative) seasons.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 1 34 7807 34 14/8/2011 11:41:0 TheBlackKnight 29 1 “At last! Welcome back RTC!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 2 58 7831 8 14/8/2011 14:31:0 TheBlackKnight 29 2 “Can we just clear up a point or two.
1. Rangers have been issued with a court order for payment. This assumes that rangers lost in court, or ignored requests for payment.
2. That court order includes the original sum, (£2.8m) of unpaid tax. This is not related to the greater sum mentioned in the FTT.
3. The judge/ sheriff has heard the reasons for the claim and accepts HMRCs position and has issued the court order.
4. As the court order has already gone, Rangers would have been told previously whether they can appeal the decision or not or that they have appealed and that appeal failed.
5. Rangers will be able to make an appeal for the £1.4m in charges, but not the £2.8m. This will need to be paid in the next 3-4 weeks unless Rangers go through a public and embarrassing procedure to claim they are unable to pay.
6. What is the business plan should Rangers fail against Maribor?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 2 69 7842 19 14/8/2011 17:12:0 TheBlackKnight 29 3 “I had posted this previously on the ‘about’ pages
Here’s one to ponder. If ‘pari passu’ (the rule of equal footing or standing) is applied, surely the benefits the players/ management etc had received already would be taken into account?
It is all fine and well applying an equal status rule from the same starting point, but if HMRC have not received tax payments for a number of years, yet the players and managers continue to receive payments, this cannot be deemed equal.
RTC?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 2 73 7846 23 14/8/2011 18:48:0 TheBlackKnight 29 4 “Hi Adam, I believe you have answered your own question.
(as long as the business debt is not tied to or guaranteed against the house)”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 2 74 7847 24 14/8/2011 18:54:0 TheBlackKnight 29 5 “RTC, much like MB, Irvine appears to be using this guy as a patsy.
May the roads rise to meet you! More power to you RTC!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 2 98 7871 48 14/8/2011 22:10:0 TheBlackKnight 29 6 “Cheers RTC, no doubt more questions will be raised than answered.
Nice to have you back at the helm.
Any thoughts on the recent hearings? (re:MB) and the recent press releases in some way linking Advocat’s dealings to the situation?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 154 7928 4 15/8/2011 19:34:0 TheBlackKnight 29 7 “On a different note, good results posted today by Celtic. Just shows what appears to be a well run business with little European and SPL money for the last 3 years can do in these austere times.
Whyte Knight should take note. That 1% of info is on me 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 157 7931 7 15/8/2011 20:11:0 TheBlackKnight 29 8 “I think the laws of probability would have iain’s comments around 2.8million, or 4.2 million, or 36millon to one.
😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 159 7933 9 15/8/2011 20:17:0 TheBlackKnight 29 9 “easyJambo says:
15/08/2011 at 2:30 pm
SUMMARY OF CELTIC’S RESULTS
Financial Highlights
• Year-end net bank debt of £0.53m (2010: £5.85m).
Hi EJ,
Have to disagree. Given the austere times and lack of European/Championship money for three years running, I believe they have done a grand job in reducing the debt.
IMHO of course.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 175 7949 25 15/8/2011 21:21:0 TheBlackKnight 29 10 “Thanks EJ, I know from your posts your intentions are well meant.
You make some interesting and valid points., which in the main, I agree (particularly the sales that have kept us in a manageable and level financial status)
Always good to read your input! Best regards TBK”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 176 7950 26 15/8/2011 21:26:0 TheBlackKnight 29 11 “Hi Duggie,
How about this? 😉
‘Dear ‘Phil ‘ll fix it ‘
Can you fix it for me for a couple of Black Marias to arrive at Media House and several burly members of the Queens finest constabulary to knock on Mr Irvines door to discuss his recent tweets in regard to outing HMRC employees that may have a leaning toward a certain football team.
In these difficult times, annonymous internet death threats and sectarian violence, I find it shocking that these incredulous acts and attempts to muster up hatred and suspicion against an employee of HM Revenue and Customs as being incredibly stupid and dangerous.
It would be great to sit this media savvy guru down for a wee chat (on the record of course)
Many thanks in advance,
Sir (The) Black Knight’
Re: the £11million loan. Where in the accounts does it refer?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 179 7953 29 15/8/2011 21:33:0 TheBlackKnight 29 12 “RTC,
Any comment on the Sky News report. (It appears the guy was reading out a pre prepared statement). He clearly states that as part of the takeover Mr Murray was going to cover the tax liability as part of the deal. Aherm……
When asked what Rangers FC are saying about it, he kept on quoting a member of the supporters association who had some serious concerns (understandably). NOT the club!
http://www.youtube.com/embed/q1wF0pr4Iao?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 184 7958 34 15/8/2011 21:48:0 TheBlackKnight 29 13 “Droid 😉
…..,,,,,,,,, I’M RTC!!!!!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 186 7960 36 15/8/2011 21:54:0 TheBlackKnight 29 14 “Cheers Adam, (nice to see you back too)
Do you have a link? I can only see bank debt being reduced so can’t understand where Co-op Bank debt/ loan comes into play.
Interest-bearing liabilities = Rental of stadia?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 194 7968 44 15/8/2011 22:4:0 TheBlackKnight 29 15 “HI LW!
😉
Yes, Charlie says, Charlie had a big grin! Better watch he isn’t outed as a closet Celtic, or Hearts (EJ) fan
PS.
Sorry in advance for being a pedant.
It’s not Greyskull (he-man lived in Castle Greyskull, Skelator lived in Snake Mountain)
We use ‘Mordor’ these days. Bit more appropriate don’t you think. 😉
I’M (Sparticus) RTC!!!!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 4 196 7970 46 15/8/2011 22:7:0 TheBlackKnight 29 16 “Cheers Adam / EJ!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 5 205 7979 5 15/8/2011 22:40:0 TheBlackKnight 29 17 “LOL tomtom,
You’re a very naughty bhoy! 😉
LW, PMSL!!!!!
SIZE OF A TAX BILL!!! Brilliant!!! 🙂 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 7 301 8079 1 16/8/2011 21:14:0 TheBlackKnight 29 18 “Can I just interject for a moment.
Is it not true that Ellis had carried out a period of due diligence, prior to the Whyte Knight, as part of his consortium bid?
Couldn’t have been very diligent?
It takes HMRC a long time to chase up on defaulted accounts. The fact is a (or several) bill was issued and was not paid.
The question has to be asked why?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 6 254 8029 4 16/8/2011 16:32:0 The Black Knight 86 1 “rangerstaxcase says:
16/08/2011 at 3:43 pm
‘Let me just say that regarding the progress of the FTT to date, I am not worrying. ‘
Not even 1% 🙂 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 7 324 8102 24 16/8/2011 22:12:0 TheBlackKnight 29 19 “Sbhoy, yes. It’s in RFCs financials. They were aware and it was not an assessment. It was a bill. That much was confirmed.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 7 336 8115 36 16/8/2011 23:11:0 TheBlackKnight 29 20 “The King of Broomloan?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 8 366 8146 16 17/8/2011 9:46:0 The Black Knight 86 2 “Hi hitch22, welcome back also,
See what happens when I go to bed!!!! I miss everything 😦
Some interesting stuff from LW et all. It certainly is becoming something like a Mel Brookes production.
(Hope its not Blazing Saddles………. ‘All right… we’ll give some land to the n*ggers and the ch*nks. But we don’t want the Irish! …’)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 9 426 8206 26 17/8/2011 19:12:0 TheBlackKnight 29 21 “JP, a fair assumption.
I’m unsure as to the liabilities, as Rangers asked for the tribunal, so can we assume both sides will absorb costs.
If however the roles are reversed, HMRC win 75%, will Rangers be accountable for their costs?
Normally in civil cases, where the defender (or respondent) acts recklessly in their claim, they can be held to bear the costs.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 9 428 8208 28 17/8/2011 19:21:0 TheBlackKnight 29 22 “Accountant, are you aware of the recent changes in legislation and HMRC rules in regard to tax avoidance? (January 2011?)
I just want to be clear on what angle you are trying to get at. (also taking on board comments already made pertaining to the eligibility of players and their contracts to play in SPL and UEFA competition)”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 9 429 8209 29 17/8/2011 19:24:0 TheBlackKnight 29 23 “Thanks JP”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 9 430 8210 30 17/8/2011 19:33:0 TheBlackKnight 29 24 “Ian Ferguson
17/08/2011 at 7:03 pm
(and other points)
Hi Ian!
You raise some very valid points. Unless I am missing something, the thread of the accountants point appears to be that the players were subcontractors, and as such (recent case law) unless otherwise specified in the contract, are accountable for the tax.
If that is the case, and rangers are passing the buck, there may be many bankrupt or jailed ‘rangers legends’.
I honestly cannot see Rangers FC, doing that to ex players, can you?
Also, as you rightly pointed out, RFC, would be in danger of being stripped of competition or titles for fielding a team of ineligible players for, what could have been, several years.
I cannot reason with that prospect either.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 9 431 8211 31 17/8/2011 19:48:0 TheBlackKnight 29 25 “oisin71 says:
17/08/2011 at 6:03 pm
RTC,
Charlie 15.20???
You in Iceland or the Azores???
I noticed this in the last blog format the clock was GMT -1hr. Now the blog clock is GMT but you’re not!!!
Perhaps the Balkans? 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 9 434 8214 34 17/8/2011 20:4:0 TheBlackKnight 29 26 ” 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 9 449 8229 49 17/8/2011 21:53:0 TheBlackKnight 29 27 “Many thanks Ramsay Smith. Thought as much. It seems akin to civil system.
Wonder how confident Mr Thornhill is? 50%-50%?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 10 451 8231 1 17/8/2011 22:9:0 TheBlackKnight 29 28 “Thanks JP. Agree, if successful to any substantial measure.
Re: thornhill , posturing aside, Pride before a fall and all that, perhaps also?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 10 459 8239 9 17/8/2011 23:13:0 TheBlackKnight 29 29 “http://internationaltaxnews.co.uk/2010/11/29/is-the-net-closing-in-on-the-tax-scheme-provider/”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 11 508 8288 8 18/8/2011 15:37:0 The Black Knight 86 3 “can we just get back on track a wee bit. lots of interesting points.
The fact remains however, Rangers launched this tribunal in response to a request for payment from HMRC.
The amount is disputed. It is clear Rangers will have to pay something. They are not exempt from tax. It just needs to be determined how much and how much it differs from the assessment.
yes?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 11 512 8292 12 18/8/2011 16:13:0 The Black Knight 86 4 “theaccountant says:
18/08/2011 at 3:51 pm
‘The Black Knight, the amount is not in dispute, Rangers claim to have acted lawfully, and that they owe nothing, that would appear to be a clear indication of their’s and their Counsel’s position.’
??
I think I need to hire this Mr Thornhill (Baxendale – Walker) so that I am exempt from ANY tax liabilities (Income/PAYE).
I find it incomprehensible that Rangers believe they are exempt from paying tax to employees (in particular those who would appear to benefit from ‘salaries’ in excess of £500,000 per year)…… but then who am I to argue.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 11 520 8300 20 18/8/2011 16:58:0 The Black Knight 86 5 “Why spill the beans and spoil the surprise. RTC has already explained all will be made clear once the decision is made.
Seems fair to me.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 11 534 8314 34 18/8/2011 18:2:0 The Black Knight 86 6 “rangerstaxcase says:
18/08/2011 at 5:34 pm
‘Terrible odour of Media House on here today. I guess when you have nothing else to try, you might try to get me to say more than would be wise in the hope of getting evidence thrown out.
Of course, it is all 99% crap… So why bother.’
😉
But what is the 1%?????????”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 11 549 8330 49 18/8/2011 19:26:0 TheBlackKnight 29 30 “A N Other. says:
18/08/2011 at 6:17 pm
‘Is this some kind of iceberg analogy?’
Lettuce have a wee think about that…. 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 12 553 8334 3 18/8/2011 19:48:0 TheBlackKnight 29 31 “A N Other,
That was a little gem 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 12 600 8382 50 19/8/2011 17:43:0 TheBlackKnight 29 32 “I’m RTC and my wife is Phil Mac 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 608 8390 8 19/8/2011 18:29:0 TheBlackKnight 29 33 “Here’s a question Iain?
If RTC = Phil Mac and not
RTC = MB
Why did RTC not moderate your post (or this for that matter)
On another note, Phil Mac broke the story and in the conversation MB made the comment. Numerous journalists and persons associated to the case and Rangers FC have spoken to MB in this regard. Pretty much the stock answer was that which both Phil, RTC and others have brought to our attention. Including that particular quote.
PS, I’m not MB!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 619 8401 19 19/8/2011 19:13:0 TheBlackKnight 29 34 “A N Other. says:
19/08/2011 at 6:43 pm
Don’t put yourself down my friend. From what I see, education or not, you have made some very valid points! (particularly in your knowledge of vegetation 😉 )
And yes, I believe you are correct. Lots of RFC fans being mislead and ‘shafted’ (shareholders in particular)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 620 8402 20 19/8/2011 19:15:0 TheBlackKnight 29 35 “I’m not in Ashton Lane! Nor is my wife 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 622 8404 22 19/8/2011 19:21:0 TheBlackKnight 29 36 “Henry Clarson says:
19/08/2011 at 7:13 pm
What about beer and a good read 😉
Serious question though!
PS. I will look out the publications you note. Always fascinated me. Particularly in light of advancement in technology (eg t’internet). People taking on different persona’s or believing they are untouchable (anonymous)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 632 8414 32 19/8/2011 20:9:0 TheBlackKnight 29 37 “Hi Adam,
Just a small point, Phil said ‘observer’. He also went on to commend the support (200 or so) that indeed did refrain. He also said as much he hope it was the start of a new future.
All positive on my reading of it.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 636 8418 36 19/8/2011 20:21:0 TheBlackKnight 29 38 “Quite right EJ, keep them in check!
(best not to talk about last night)
1. The 2nd tax bill – is it a bill or an assessment. Still the semantics of this is annoying.
2. The financial implications of Rangers exit from the CL – £ MASSIVE. some papers where noting in excess if £15M. I however have to take the view of some other posters where it is probably in the £7-10M
3. CW’s promised investment in the team – he appears to be investing, just not to the expectations as promised (or the warchest announced conveniently via Media House)
4. Rangers cash flow – they appear to have no operating capital so major problem if reality.
5.What if an insolvency event occured before the FTT resumed for the main tax case? – it would be the best Christmas/ Birthday/ Anniversary I ever had 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 639 8422 39 19/8/2011 20:53:0 TheBlackKnight 29 39 “Good points Adam ( disagree with your opinion on PMac however, each to their own)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 648 8431 48 19/8/2011 22:27:0 TheBlackKnight 29 40 “Lol Ian Ferguson.
Maybe DM?????? (shock face)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 13 650 8433 50 19/8/2011 22:45:0 TheBlackKnight 29 41 “Thought this was interesting.
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/topic/tax/new-tax-dividends-revisited-nichola-ross-martin
Wonder if it could be read in conjunction with MBs ‘financial irregularities’???? I guess Rangers defence could be along the like the now famed MG05s. Badly worded and incorrectly filled in (misleading)
Sumbdy fulled in ra rang form :/”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 655 8438 5 19/8/2011 23:40:0 TheBlackKnight 29 42 “The Taxman…
Not sure if it works that way? It’s clear that he wasn’t cleared by the border agency to play in the SPL, but was cleared as a wild card for European competition.
I don’t think Rangers could make such a blunder.
Sion also fielded 4 ineligble players.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 661 8444 11 20/8/2011 0:7:0 TheBlackKnight 29 43 “Chris, great find. Not sure if it stands up though.
Surely Rangers would not have left themselves open to this embarrassment ? Nor would the SFA have NOT sent their letter of approval.
Would they?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 664 8447 14 20/8/2011 0:16:0 TheBlackKnight 29 44 “Adam, good point (that I was trying to make) however, the clause does more written representation.
I’m sure the SFA did send the letter.”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 665 8448 15 20/8/2011 0:17:0 TheBlackKnight 29 45 “‘note’ :/”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 669 8452 19 20/8/2011 0:36:0 TheBlackKnight 29 46 “Wonder if his special subcontractor permit came through in time too 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 672 8455 22 20/8/2011 0:45:0 TheBlackKnight 29 47 “LW, thank god you said that LOL!
I’ve been pacing round the room backwards reciting the bible 😉 ”
Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 673 8456 23 20/8/2011 0:54:0 TheBlackKnight 29 48 “Adam, I see the morsel has been doing the rounds on KDS and other sites.
I think you are correct though. ( as long as there was written confirmation, which is standard practice) UEFA are total pedants when it comes to these things. The SFA on the otherhand?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 676 8459 26 20/8/2011 1:33:0 TheBlackKnight 29 49 “Hi Droid, that’s the point. The visa / clearance from Border Agency doesn’t matter.
It’s a clearance letter from the SFA that matters.
Hope that’s clearer?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 678 8461 28 20/8/2011 2:5:0 TheBlackKnight 29 50 “Michael, no, they still need the permit. European competition, particularly around transfer window, allows wild cards to be signed before a certain time (as long as the domestic governing body sends a letter of comfort)
Did Dorin Goian not have issues with his permit?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 683 8466 33 20/8/2011 2:22:0 TheBlackKnight 29 51 “Sounds like soor grapes Iain.
Tree, barking, wrong and up the.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 690 8473 40 20/8/2011 9:37:0 TheBlackKnight 29 52 “Well said Adam, likewise.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 695 8478 45 20/8/2011 10:12:0 TheBlackKnight 29 53 “Adam read the post again ( I must admit I missed it)
It appears Michael is having a pedant moment rather than a swipe or a joke.
‘ (although your spelling is so crazy I guess you’ve had a few drinks tonight), ‘
Think we should move on?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 697 8480 47 20/8/2011 10:20:0 TheBlackKnight 29 54 “Did anyone else miss this??
Hugh McEwan
19/08/2011 at 8:35 pm
‘I think there’s another small misunderstanding that is going about, certainly on Rangers forums which now seem to be accepting that there is a tax issue and that it could be really bad for the club. It’s taken a while but it seems the message might be getting through to some of the fans.
It seems that they now think that Craig Whyte can put the club into administration, get his money out, then pick up the club for a song and take it out of administration. The basic flaw in this argument is that it assumes there can only be one ‘insolvency event’ as Craig Whyte euphemistically described it to the other shareholders. This isn’t the case. There is absolutely nothing stopping him going down the receiver route, and getting his money. However that does not stop other creditors also taking their own action. The company could come straight out of receivership and into a winding up order. Even if Mr Whyte then puts Rangers into administration how likely is it that the Tax Man will want to take some sort of deal. Particularly if Whyte is trying this pre-pack scenario. Much more likely that they will try to force the business into liquidation.’
Thoughts please?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 14 700 8483 50 20/8/2011 10:59:0 TheBlackKnight 29 55 “I think that is the point Adam, Hugh appears to be saying (outside of liquidation/ Phoenix company scenario) that if Rangers go into administration, Whyte gets his money as preferred creditor, then resurects the club, HMRC will come for their money regardless.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 15 702 8485 2 20/8/2011 11:21:0 TheBlackKnight 29 56 “Adam, like you I’m unsure.
Assume liquidation does not happen. Only AR. RFC/ HMRC are in court (awaiting decision)
RFC know the possible routes, hence the mentioning of insolvency event. They would however have to wait until the outcome.
What if, and it’s a big IF, it happens before the decision. Rangers go into administration, Whyte Knight gets his money back, HMRC get nothing.
2 things.
1. The Whyte Knight gets his money back through what? Sale of assets? (stadium/training facility?)
2. What if HMRC dont go after RFC until they resurrect?
I may be wrong but I think that is what Hugh was referring to. (assuming a Phoenix like scenario)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 15 703 8486 3 20/8/2011 12:50:0 TheBlackKnight 29 57 “Refer to PMac in regard to MBs ongoing tribunal.
If MB wins his constructive dismissal, Rangers could be hit with a further £1.3M order to pay.
Rangers fans must surely be hoping the Whyte Knights pockets are as deep as Media House have made out!
Interesting times?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 15 712 8495 12 20/8/2011 14:39:0 TheBlackKnight 29 58 “Exactly what I think Hugh McEwan was referring to.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 15 736 8519 36 20/8/2011 20:39:0 TheBlackKnight 29 59 “What would be the figure (to the closest £1) that would have HMRC as the priority creditor.
Taking into account the purchase (£1) alleged investment (£2M) and the assignment of the debt (£18M) from The Whyte Knight
? £20M £2”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 15 743 8528 43 20/8/2011 23:9:0 TheBlackKnight 29 60 “Sorry Hugh, forgive my ignorance. I just was making the point that surely he who holds the largest debt is first in the queue.
Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 15 747 8535 47 20/8/2011 23:52:0 TheBlackKnight 29 61 “Cheers Adam, that’s the bit I’ve always struggled with.
The Whyte Knight bought the club for £1. Serviced the debt of £18M, and yet has priority over anyone else even if that debt is larger (damn 2003 and priority status!!)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 16 753 8541 3 21/8/2011 1:31:0 TheBlackKnight 29 62 “Exactly! We have all been considering AR (appointed by the Whyte Knight regime)
If the court were to order administration , it becomes he who has the largest amount outstanding.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 16 762 8550 12 21/8/2011 11:25:0 TheBlackKnight 29 63 “Droid, are you suggesting DM cried out ‘O Lord, my God, is there no help for the Widow’s Son?’ and CW answered his petition?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 853 8642 3 22/8/2011 19:6:0 TheBlackKnight 29 64 “The Accountant wrote:
‘As I look out of my office window, at Westminster Bridge and across to the Houses of Parliament’
Just out of interest, I believed HMRC moved out of Somerset House in 2009? (relocating to Parliament Street / Bush House)
Positioned as it is,(Somerset House offices on the south and east wings) even having a waterfront view, you would be doing well to see down river, across Embankment, Waterloo Bridge and then Westminster Bridge.
Have they opened another office across from Westminster?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 858 8647 8 22/8/2011 19:39:0 TheBlackKnight 29 65 “Lol Exiled, that would be a great office 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 859 8648 9 22/8/2011 19:43:0 TheBlackKnight 29 66 “Even better LW 🙂 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 865 8654 15 22/8/2011 19:58:0 TheBlackKnight 29 67 “I know the area VERY well. I am confused!!
As I look out my window across the Thames to the London Eye from Parliament buildings east wing……… Erm I mean……..Wait a minute, I dont have a window in my padded cell? 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 872 8661 22 22/8/2011 20:34:0 TheBlackKnight 29 68 “The MG05s was withdrawn from public view.
It may have been done to ‘protect’ the company from persons gathering information that would be detrimental to the business or was so portly worded/ filled in it mislead the investors or because it was a total fudge”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 873 8662 23 22/8/2011 20:36:0 TheBlackKnight 29 69 “‘poorly’ even…… Perhaps Portly 😉 ”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 876 8665 26 22/8/2011 20:57:0 TheBlackKnight 29 70 “http://rangerstaxcase.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mg05s-june2011.pdf
This is the old one, prior to the court request to ‘amend’, which I understand is now hidden from public view or at least has not been reissued with the amendment.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 882 8671 32 22/8/2011 21:41:0 TheBlackKnight 29 71 “easyJambo says:
24/06/2011 at 12:49 pm
All you legal beagles ‘ some legal and financial interpretation required.
Rangers appear to have posted a document allowing the removal of the previviously submitted MG05s from Companies House records. My reading of it is that they have applied to the Court of Session (Lord Glennie) to have the MG05s dated 31/05/11 removed.
What does it all mean?
I’ve uploaded a copy of the doc to Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58620414/Rangers-MG05s-removal-24-06-11”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 18 895 8684 45 22/8/2011 23:16:0 TheBlackKnight 29 72 “TheBlackKnight says:
24/06/2011 at 9:10 pm
‘In the context of contract law, rectification is a basis to apply to court to amend a document in the event that the document does not reflect the agreement of the parties. Most types of mercantile documents may be rectified including commercial contracts, transfers of shares, conveyances, deeds and leases.
The requirements of rectification are that there is an agreement prior to the preparation of the document; there is strong, irrefragable evidence that document does not reflect the agreement reached between the parties by mistake; the document does not record the common intention of the parties; a party’s awareness of the error in the document will not of itself prevent rectification.
Rectification allows the correction of the recording of the agreement in writing rather than the agreement itself.
Where a party has involved themselves in SHARP PRACTICE or their CONSCIENCE should be affected by the practice, rectification has been made available.
Oral evidence may be admitted to prove the subjective intentions of the parties at the time of the contract. When an order for rectification is made, the court will usually order specific performance of the amended contract.’
Sharp Practice ‘ legal usage; cunning, or deceptive, sneaky behaviour……..,,,
Hmmmmmmmmm?
Now, the question(s) has to be asked,
1. Is the removal/amendment due to an honest mistake? Was the document so poorly drafted or positioned by these high flying professionals that it no longer reflected the intentions of the agreement?
2. Did the document no longer reflect the agreement between the parties?
3. Is someone guilty of SHARP PRACTICE, or has this site got the better of their CONSCIENCE?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 20 978 8771 28 23/8/2011 21:10:0 TheBlackKnight 29 73 “Spot on Adam! (although I appreciate this isn’t, nor should it turn into, a football forum)
Just a note also to those would be conspiracy theorist on regard to the Tribunal Judges.
Persons like the Accountant may have their ‘Knife & Fork Degree’, but there will be no allegiance shown for the greater good in this case. It will be viewed on it’s merits in law.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 20 980 8773 30 23/8/2011 21:28:0 TheBlackKnight 29 74 “Adam, perhaps the ‘good advice’ from those who set up the EBTs? :/”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 21 1002 8795 2 24/8/2011 16:35:0 TheBlackKnight 29 75 “Agree Rab!
Bocanegra stuation is now resolved ( case thrown out) but UEFA may now be looking into the tax liability issue.
Wouldn’t expect a result there either though.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 21 1006 8800 6 24/8/2011 18:54:0 TheBlackKnight 29 76 “No offence MQ, but Adam is correct (well said). Plenty of other sites to ‘score points’ on.
Adam, paraphrasing of course but did AJ not suggest the bill/ assessment came ‘out of left field’. ?
This was several months before the takeover. I don’t recall if it is highlighted in the half yearly accounts either. Sorry if this has been covered already.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 21 1008 8802 8 24/8/2011 19:15:0 TheBlackKnight 29 77 “Thanks Adam, Agree.
Unless it is as I said before. Perhaps they had some ‘good advice’ to ignore?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 21 1011 8805 11 24/8/2011 19:50:0 TheBlackKnight 29 78 “Great link EJ,
AJ said in April 2011,
‘As the Americans say, this one came right out of left-field. It really, really is frustrating. No one knew about it a couple of months ago ‘ and let me put on record that if we did know about it we would have had to put it in our annual report and take liability for it in the accounts.'”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 23 1117 8917 17 27/8/2011 11:43:0 TheBlackKnight 29 79 “gunnerb says:
27/08/2011 at 12:55 am
interesting article in view of the recent posts on the blog regarding player sales/finances…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2030640/Ally-McCoist-guarantee-Rangers-players-wont-sold.html
‘Art of war’ at play here again I believe. It seems whenever (Rangers in particular) a club loses out on revenue from Europe, the team’s star players are up for sale.
I don’t think anyone will be ‘in’ for these so called stars. It will be interesting should it happen. It will be more interesting if it doesn’t.
On another note, I see one or two of the daily rags have suggested that Rangers have lost out on a £4m lucrative run in EL. Today, the reports suggest Celtic may have a chance of getting through (if Sion are sanctioned) to ‘glean’ £1m? Scottish reporting at it’s best!
Well done Shamrock !”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 19 913 8702 13 23/8/2011 9:8:0 The Black Knight 86 7 “OnandOnandOnand says:
22/08/2011 at 10:32 pm
‘Without wishing to lend too much credence to The Accountant (entertaining as his posts may be), there is an office of HMRC at 100 Parliament Street, SW1A which does indeed look out to Westminster Bridge and the Palace of Westminster, deals mostly with international tax clearances and the like, pretty high level stuff……………………..’
sorry to be a pedant, I was aware of the office(s) location that is why I asked.
Parliament street continues on from St Margaret Street and is where the House of Commons/Lords (Parliament) sits. It is on the same side of the water and you do not look across the Westminster Bridge. You look across Bridge Street. You cannot see the Houses of Parliament from 100 Parliament Street, trust me!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 25 1210 9015 10 30/8/2011 20:6:0 TheBlackKnight 29 80 “I think there could be a couple (or six) of things at play here.
1. The player doesn’t want to leave because he believe’s the Championship will be a step back.
2. Rangers are playing a game of ‘poker’ in the hope that the interested party will come back with a stronger offer.
3. Rangers are playing a game of ‘call my bluff’ in the hope that this will now generate other interest and start a bidding war.
4. The player has a clause in his contract that states he can only be sold on to a similar level or higher level club.
5. Rangers don’t need the money so he is not for sale!
6. ‘the art of war’ is at play again.
With the much lauded debt levels and outstanding bills, I find it incredible that the club have released a public statement refusing the offer. Do clubs not normally ask permission or enquire about a player via their agents prior to an offer coming in from the cold?
Interesting times!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 25 1213 9019 13 31/8/2011 9:37:0 The Black Knight 86 8 “Timmy says:
30/08/2011 at 8:28 pm
‘7. A ‘smoke & mirrors’ type boost to the fans that Whyte will hold on to his best players by hook or by crook i.e. just like a new signing…’
These words may come back to haunt you.
Large bills to pay and Jellavic is prime fodder for the cash cow.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 25 1227 9036 27 1/9/2011 9:56:0 TheBlackKnight 29 81 “I see that PMacG site has been suspended.!!!!!
Hopefully it’s a technical/ misunderstanding type thing
Or
Do you think the Whyte Knight has finally got at him for informing the public as to what may really be going on?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 26 1266 9076 16 1/9/2011 20:59:0 TheBlackKnight 29 82 “http://www.thecelticnetwork.com/2011/09/01/a-failed-attempt-to-silence-a-journalist/
Why would they do that? Who’s next?”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 26 1275 9085 25 1/9/2011 21:43:0 TheBlackKnight 29 83 “That is the Martin Bain case. (apologies if you already knew)”

Leaks & Lawsuits 1 22 9195 22 2/9/2011 15:34:0 TheBlackKnight 19 1 “RTC, once again I salute you!”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 27 1334 9145 34 2/9/2011 12:1:0 The Black Knight 86 9 “andycol says:
02/09/2011 at 10:16 am
Am I totally misreading this MG01S? It looks to me as if Close have been charged with collecting a debt from Azure Catering/Murray.
To my mind yes! Its the other way around.
It will be RFC that owe Azure Catering. It looks like Rangers have sold off their ‘profit/ benefit’ from the contract with Azure Catering, to raise some capital (loan from Close).
I read it as Rangers have assigned the security of the contract to Azure Catering and any money due to / from Azure Catering as security of a loan / charge provided by Close.
Then again? (remember, remember the invisible MG05s)”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 28 1355 9166 5 2/9/2011 14:9:0 The Black Knight 86 10 “‘greengrass says:
02/09/2011 at 1:40 pm

charge no 14…do they have 14 charges or is this a ref no…’
878 of the companies act 2006
‘Charges created by a company. Daily default fine removed’
Clue is in ‘DEFAULT’ I think.”

Credit Where Credit Is Due 28 1357 9169 7 2/9/2011 14:15:0 The Black Knight 86 11 “3. The prescribed particulars for the purposes of section 878(1) of the Act are’
(a) the particulars prescribed by regulation 2; and
(b) in the case of a floating charge, a statement as to any provisions of the charge and of any instrument relating to it which prohibit or restrict or regulate the power of the company to grant further securities ranking in priority to, or pari passu with, the floating charge, or which vary or otherwise regulate the order of ranking of the floating charge in relation to subsisting securities.
Interesting times indeed. Looks like CREDIT where Credit is due RTC!!!!!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 4 151 9331 1 3/9/2011 11:45:0 TheBlackKnight 19 2 “‘Remember, remember, the 1st of September
The Smoke Mirrors and plot ;
I know of no reason why Smoke Mirrors and plot
Should ever be forgot.
Whyte Knight Whyte Knight
‘Twas his intent.
To blow out the club and the establishment.
Three score barrels of tax bills below.
Poor old ‘Aye Ready’ to overthrow.
By God’s providence he was catch’d,
With a dark lantern and a Tax (inspector)
Holloa boys, Holloa boys, let the bells ring
Holloa boys, Holloa boys, God save Dave King!
Hip hip Hoorah !
Hip hip Hoorah !'”

Leaks & Lawsuits 4 162 9342 12 3/9/2011 12:26:0 TheBlackKnight 19 3 “Iain, Rangers have very well paid lawyers. I assume they would have been schooled enough to know what RTC is referring to.
I don’t speak for RTC, but I do recall, a statement was made that ALL will be revealed in good time. I guess you will just have to wait like the rest of us (and Rangers lawyers)
In the meantime:
I love watching the cleverly worded news reports on TV in regard to Rangers Tax visitation and ‘ring fencing’ (seizure) of monies in their bulging bank account. Apparently Rangers are annoyed by this as there are ongoing discussions with HMRC in regard to Tax. Leaving the population to believe that this IS the tax bill (£2.8m)
That would be the FTT then!
THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND (And deaf as apparent) AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 4 163 9343 13 3/9/2011 12:29:0 TheBlackKnight 19 4 “LW , you are naughty! Lol! 😉 ”

Leaks & Lawsuits 4 179 9359 29 3/9/2011 12:57:0 TheBlackKnight 19 5 “Poor deluded whytebear writes:
‘Everything else has been uinnuendo and supposition. A great deal of which has been wrong…off the top of my head what has been wrong include:’
‘Whyte’s takeover is a ‘fakeover” – it was a suggestion and a topic which may in all probability be unlikely, but could still be being played out infront of your very eyes.
‘Whyte wanted to take 100% control and take the (sic)club private’ – he did! He has overall control and RFC remain listed (for the moment) on the small stock exchange 😉
‘The MG05 to ‘mortgage’ the season books’
Was not proposed by RTC! The MG05s was so misleading and poorly drafted it was removed. It still is open to interpretation.
‘Which he now laughably suggests was stopped by posters on this blog!’
it wasn’t stopped!!! Because of issues highlighted by many, including myself on here, Rangers went to court and asked for a judge to rule that the information should be ‘hidden’ from public view. Information that should be freely available to the supporters/ investors etc but is now concealed. This site alerted many to this and the possible reasons for doing so.
‘The latest wildely inacurate interpretation of the re-assignation of the catering contract.’
Really! What do you take it as Iain? Did you write the MG05s also?”

Leaks & Lawsuits 4 182 9362 32 3/9/2011 13:5:0 TheBlackKnight 19 6 “ramsay smith says:
03/09/2011 at 12:44 pm
‘And some who are unpaid by the looks of it.
Otherwise why are Levy and McRae suing them?’
Hi Ramsay, it depends.
Do you mean them acting on behalf of Martin Bain for a possible £2M-£3M lawsuit, or a separate action brought by Levy and McRae for unpaid legal fees? 😉 ”

Leaks & Lawsuits 4 187 9367 37 3/9/2011 13:14:0 TheBlackKnight 19 7 “Iain, picking up on The Honorable (Celtic fan We Are Tax Payers) Lord Wobbly’ question………
Do you think that Rangers, given the alleged ‘warchest’, and ‘billionaire’ status that is available to The Whyte Knight, have requested of the HMRC a payment scheme, due to their inability to pay?
It is on record they have made a payment in the £100k’s, not the £2.4M demanded or the appealed £1.4M in penalties.
Are you suggesting Rangers can’t afford to pay?
Yours,
Another tax paying Celtic Supporter”

Leaks & Lawsuits 4 190 9370 40 3/9/2011 13:21:0 TheBlackKnight 19 8 “Sorry, as Johnobhoyo states (and eloquently) should have read
‘It is on record they have made a payment in the £100k’s, not the £2.8M demanded or the appealed £1.4M in penalties.'”

Leaks & Lawsuits 4 199 9379 49 3/9/2011 13:50:0 TheBlackKnight 19 9 “I think Iain has gone to find an adult! 😉 ”

Leaks & Lawsuits 5 202 9382 2 3/9/2011 13:56:0 TheBlackKnight 19 10 “Afternoon all.
Can anyone take a stab at the question I and others have posed to Iain.
If Rangers have the money, why have they only paid a few £100k of the £2.8M tax bill?
Have they agreed a payment plan? It appears not.
Have they got money in the bank? It appears yes.
Where did that money come from? Is it part of the £5M pledged, part of the ‘warchest’, part of ST money or European money from last season?”

Leaks & Lawsuits 5 206 9386 6 3/9/2011 14:58:0 TheBlackKnight 19 11 “Well said that man!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 5 211 9391 11 3/9/2011 16:16:0 TheBlackKnight 19 12 “Thanks Greengrass, that’s what I was getting at.
Timing is spot on for a number of possibilities!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 5 216 9396 16 3/9/2011 17:1:0 TheBlackKnight 19 14 “droid says:
03/09/2011 at 4:36 pm
‘TBK ‘ the £100K is probably the amount Mr Whyte raised when he sold the penny shares in MHG?’
That’s what I was thinking could be one of the possibilities
That, the £5M ‘investment’ (which would probably be used as operating capital) or season ticket money (which was due in august / sept) or from his personal ‘warchest’
Iain, out of interest. Which do you think is most likely (even apply ‘lex parsimoniae’ if you wish) to make it simple for us ‘Sellick minde pseudo intilectuals’ (sic)”

Leaks & Lawsuits 5 224 9404 24 3/9/2011 18:31:0 TheBlackKnight 19 15 “Hi PW,
I had heard the same! Seems farcical but apparently true!
The ‘loyal’ service of Levy McRae over the years has been put to the test. As Rangers lawyers for a number of years I’m sure they know quite a lot about the goings on.”

Leaks & Lawsuits 5 226 9406 26 3/9/2011 19:9:0 TheBlackKnight 19 16 “droid says:
03/09/2011 at 6:46 pm
‘I can’t wait for when Ernie the Milkman comes calling for his money….’
Da da dadadadadadadada da da dadadada…….. Lol!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 5 230 9411 30 3/9/2011 20:7:0 TheBlackKnight 19 17 “Paulie,
Does that mean, and it has been noted before, AR (Administrative Receivership) is also a very real prospect!
If this is happening in regard to a, let’s say small tax bill. What will happen once a decision is made in regard to the large tax case?
Or is that The Whyte Knights intent?”

Leaks & Lawsuits 5 236 9417 36 3/9/2011 21:36:0 TheBlackKnight 19 18 “Good point Hugh, but in a ‘fire sale’ they are only worth what someone will pay,,,,,,,,,,, especially if Gordon Smith is touting them 😉 ”

Leaks & Lawsuits 6 252 9433 2 3/9/2011 22:18:0 TheBlackKnight 19 19 “Given the length of process involved, the players would be able to be sold but my understanding is that their registrations would not be processed until the next transfer window.
So, forgive me if I’m wrong, but what is to stop any club with interest waiting until the club gets into real trouble ie liquidated, therefore the players become free agents anyway.
So I wouldn’t bank on player sales!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 6 257 9439 7 3/9/2011 23:7:0 TheBlackKnight 19 20 “Jean, if that is true then fine! I can’t wait for the new mantra from Glasgow Rangers 2012, ‘1 and counting’ 😉
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrie_United_F.C.
Airdrie Utd were founded in 2002. Their official history starts then.”

Leaks & Lawsuits 6 268 9450 18 4/9/2011 0:17:0 TheBlackKnight 19 21 “Why do the papers still insist in saying Whyte took over Rangers in a £52.5M deal????
The only thing I have seen concrete proof of is the club was purchased for £1, the £18M owed to Lloyds was ‘assigned’ to TRFCGLtd (Wavetower) and there has been some money spent on transfers and refurbishment.
What was the other £30m or so spent on?”

Leaks & Lawsuits 7 305 9487 5 4/9/2011 12:20:0 TheBlackKnight 19 22 “Does anyone know exactly when the VAT is due, and if Rangers have an annual arrangement or monthly set up?
If it is monthly (which is a sensible route to take given the possible huge amounts an annual payment may leave you with) it looks to me if it is a paper file return, payment must be by 30th September and online return by 7th October.
Can we see another ‘event’ in the making?
We know that Rangers have avoided paying tax to the HMRC fir a number of years. Have Rangers even paid their last VAT bills?”

Leaks & Lawsuits 7 310 9492 10 4/9/2011 12:36:0 TheBlackKnight 19 23 “Many thanks tomtom.
More like Ninjas in my experience 😉
I can only speculate one of Phil’s trusted sources had alerted him to a VAT issue.
Interesting times ahead…………..”

Leaks & Lawsuits 7 317 9499 17 4/9/2011 13:15:0 TheBlackKnight 19 24 “VAT is currently 20%”

Leaks & Lawsuits 7 324 9506 24 4/9/2011 13:49:0 TheBlackKnight 19 25 “Challenge to any of the ‘bean counters’ (apologies in advance) to look at Rangers accounts and come up with a reasonable ‘guesstimate’ of their monthly/ quarterly outgoings. (working capital)
Any takers?”

Leaks & Lawsuits 7 328 9510 28 4/9/2011 13:55:0 TheBlackKnight 19 26 “Hi Duggie, yes well aware of that prospect. I think even RTC had expressed their personal preference for that type of scenario/ event. The club would be financially restricted for a number of years allowing Celtic to perhaps dominate.
Ideal scenario for me.”

Leaks & Lawsuits 7 338 9520 38 4/9/2011 15:0:0 TheBlackKnight 19 27 “SDM, all Celtic supporters are well aware of the past 3 seasons and the boards inaction in that regard.( particularly GS last season and the appointment of TM)
Rangers have been perceived as being weak ( Art of War ) but in reality, squad wise, were quite the opposite.
We failed to punish them when a great opportunity arose. That, IMHO, will not happen again.
I was referring more to the ‘succulent lamb’ and ‘for every £5’ period of over spending. I for one am glad we didn’t go down that route of effectively ‘buying’ titles. To my mind if we had, we may have be in the situation Rangers find themselves in today.”

Leaks & Lawsuits 7 341 9523 41 4/9/2011 15:32:0 TheBlackKnight 19 28 “Many thanks Hugh.
You are bang on! If we had not had the ex-chair/ governor of the BoE, and had taken similar ‘expert tax advice’ we would have been in a similar if not worse position than Rangers.
Remember the ‘broken crest’! Seems Rangers are in a more perilous situation but as far as the general press are concerned it is business as usual. Celtic were not afforded those luxuries.
The Whyte Knight’s PR team and ‘investors’ are trying (and succeeding pretty well) in supressing any coverage of these events. Hence this wonderful forum for debate and until lately PMacG’s site!
More power to their elbows!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 7 342 9524 42 4/9/2011 15:36:0 TheBlackKnight 19 29 “salah al din says:
04/09/2011 at 3:05 pm
‘…..,He is tweeting at sitesuspendedstillworking.’
Does that mean his normal twitter site has also been suspended since yesterday? Nothing new today ?
(beware of imposters)”

Leaks & Lawsuits 8 377 9559 27 4/9/2011 19:46:0 TheBlackKnight 19 30 “I wonder if Levy McRae will be joining the queue of other creditors this week for court papers.
Both acting on their own behalf for unpaid fees and on behalf of MB
If I were MB, I’d be enquiring if it were at all possible for them to ‘ring fence’ any of the disputed payments/ remedial payments for unfair dismissal should MB win.
My understanding is this can be requested and granted in special circumstances.”

Leaks & Lawsuits 8 382 9564 32 4/9/2011 20:21:0 TheBlackKnight 19 31 “Johnobhoyo, I may be wrong in regard to other posters statements, but for my part it was more to do with the fact WE had good advice at the time to not even consider such payment schemes and if there were any they were to be abandoned.
Good fortune (right place at the right time) or just plain good advice, I agree it does not necessarily warrant praise.
It was the right thing to do. Thankfully we followed that advice.”

Leaks & Lawsuits 8 387 9569 37 4/9/2011 21:5:0 TheBlackKnight 19 32 “Great points Slimshady! Personally BQ for me was an absolutely brilliant custodian.
I wonder if CW or his ‘tax experts’ has had a chance to read this?
http://www.pkf.co.uk/pkf/publications/football_survey#”

Leaks & Lawsuits 8 395 9577 45 4/9/2011 21:23:0 TheBlackKnight 19 33 “Cheers RTC, glad to see you back.
You dont need to convince me of the merits of Dr Brian Quinn CBE (thank you Hugh).
Iain Bankier is another great custodian. I believe we are in good hands for the forseeable future. The way in which Celtic (Peter Lawell in particular) have conducted themselves in the transfer market, privately and steadfastly has been an example of that (IMHO)
We just need to start believing and doing it on the park.
RTC, any thoughts on the VAT rumours/ potential ‘alleys’ (Iain) to go down?
I may consider starting up the ‘Rangers VAT-Case’ website 😉 ”

Leaks & Lawsuits 8 400 9583 50 4/9/2011 21:33:0 TheBlackKnight 19 34 “If he isn’t returning calls to Mr Alistair, I don’t think he will be picking up calls from the DR!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 9 411 9594 11 4/9/2011 21:51:0 TheBlackKnight 19 35 “mailto:RTC@9.35
‘However, if Rangers cash has now been depleted to the point where they cannot operate, other bills, from the £1.4m penalty to player wages would send them into receivership/administration before a current VAT bill pulled them under.
The idea is not without merit and it shows the extent to which Rangers’ existence hangs by a thread.’
Perhaps the recent reconfiguring of shares in MHG (which could have been around £400k) and the MG01 are more telling than first thought if the above scenario is possible.”

Leaks & Lawsuits 9 428 9612 28 4/9/2011 22:15:0 TheBlackKnight 19 36 “Well if you read the ‘bear-pit’ websites they would have you believe HMRC are a financial wing of the Opus Dei and the ‘RC’ stands for Roman Catholics!
Apparently THEY have jobs in Government and Law nowadays!
We are in the 21st century? Arent we? :/”

Leaks & Lawsuits 9 433 9617 33 4/9/2011 22:20:0 TheBlackKnight 19 37 “Lord Wobbly says:
04/09/2011 at 10:05 pm
cracked it. You can’t write 100 using the word. Presumably any word beginning with the H bomb’
LW Better not mention ‘hvn-dread’ 😉
Sorry in advance RTC couldn’t resist 😉

Leaks & Lawsuits 9 437 9621 37 4/9/2011 22:26:0 TheBlackKnight 19 38 “Hi Hugh,
certain ramblings of a politically driven failed artist in the late 1930’s spring to mind!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 9 440 9624 40 4/9/2011 22:31:0 TheBlackKnight 19 39 “Lord Wobbly says:
04/09/2011 at 10:23 pm
I have a hvnch that a hvndred hvngry Rangers fans might want to see Whyte hvng. Hvnts
PMSL!!!!!!!
Vndovbtedly ! 😉 ”

Leaks & Lawsuits 9 450 9634 50 4/9/2011 23:11:0 TheBlackKnight 19 40 “Re: CW
He is a risk taking ‘billionaire’ venture capitalist after all!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 10 457 9641 7 4/9/2011 23:26:0 TheBlackKnight 19 41 “So it was YOV!!! (LW) that made the bid for Hooper 🙂 ”
Leaks & Lawsuits 10 458 9642 8 4/9/2011 23:27:0 TheBlackKnight 19 42 “Beat me to it JJ lol!!!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 10 461 9645 11 4/9/2011 23:32:0 TheBlackKnight 19 43 “I wouldn’t use the accountants GPS though!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 10 470 9654 20 4/9/2011 23:55:0 TheBlackKnight 19 44 “Serious question!
What would happen if there was no demand for tickets for the game at Mordor on the 18th from the visiting Celtic Support?
Allocation is somewhere in the region of 5000 -10000 at £30? That’s anything from £150000- £300000?
Is a bhoycott a prospect? Or will the Celtic support rally to support their club and aide the plight of Rangers?”

Leaks & Lawsuits 10 471 9655 21 4/9/2011 23:58:0 TheBlackKnight 19 45 “Sorry, should have read ‘OR aide the plight'”

Leaks & Lawsuits 10 477 9661 27 5/9/2011 0:9:0 TheBlackKnight 19 46 “Agree Greengrass! We owe it to our tax paying fans and our tax paying club 😉
We owe it to Her Majesty to ensure as much cash is available to pay their bills!”

Leaks & Lawsuits 10 478 9662 28 5/9/2011 0:13:0 TheBlackKnight 19 47 “Lol Dougie! I’ll take that bet 😉 ”

Leaks & Lawsuits 10 481 9665 31 5/9/2011 0:19:0 TheBlackKnight 19 48 “Maybe a rendition if the Beatles classic:
‘Let me tell you how it will be;
There’s one for you, nineteen for me.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.’
And so to bed! Tomorrow (today) could be the day……. Or the day after 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 1 20 9698 20 5/9/2011 9:4:0 The Black Knight 10 1 “‘Stick a pony in me pocket,
I’ll fetch the suitcase from the van.
Cos if you want the best ‘uns,
But you don’t ask questions,
Then brother, I’m your man.
Cos where it all comes from is a mystery,
It’s like the changin’ of the seasons,
And the tides of the sea.
But here’s the one that’s drivin’ me beserk,
Why do only fools and horses work?
La-la-la
La-lala-la
La-la-la
La-lala-la’
Thanks for the inspiration Duggie 🙂 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 1 24 9702 24 5/9/2011 9:14:0 The Black Knight 10 2 “RTC?
Can we discount the possibility that:
the alleged billionaire had NO money whatsoever,
he did NOT pay off the debt, it was merely assigned,
the mythical ‘warchest’ did NOT transpire for that very reason (mythical),
the transfer period of claimed activity and false bids (inactivity) was because there was NO money,
the recent MG01 does NOT give security against the future food operations /sales and the recent refurbishment (less we forget) for the purpose of a meager loan (or to pay for the refurb),
the MG05s was NOT as some feared. The selling of the security of the future ticket sales.
The operating capital has NOT come from Ellis. (his 25% share for £5M upfront)
thanks in advance 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 1 31 9709 31 5/9/2011 9:24:0 The Black Knight 10 3 “rangerstaxcase says:
05/09/2011 at 9:19 am
‘(1) My understanding is that the operating capital has come primarily from Rangers’ season ticket sales. (Cash balance at this time of year is at a peak). (2) As mentioned above, I have not heard a peep about Ellis, so I cannot comment on his likely involvement. (Doesn’t mean that he is not involved).’
Cheers RTC.
Could 1 and 2 be linked? if for instance we say that there was little or no operating capital when The Whyte Knight took over?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 1 46 9724 46 5/9/2011 9:49:0 The Black Knight 10 4 “sam says:
05/09/2011 at 9:37 am
‘Word going round at Centre 1, that the big case is being abandoned.’
Well thats that then.!!! We can all go home. Good work RTC and good luck on the next project (Rangers VAT Case)
SAM, if I were a highly paid member of HMRC/ a tax investigator/ part of the legal team involved in the case (which incidentally I’m not) I would at least wait for the decision by the FTT
Seems like you are suggesting they are ‘folding’ when it is ‘free to stay’ (poker terminology) 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 2 75 9754 25 5/9/2011 10:33:0 The Black Knight 10 5 “Hmmmmmm, I think ‘the accountant’ is back……….Sam??????? 😉
PS Sam. Anyone with any authority in the case is in Edinburgh. Not East Kilbride. Centre one deals with in the main PAYE
Perhaps if your maintenance role is not a fabrication, nor is your overhearing of very privileged information between HMRC executives, I would suggest it may have been a couple of hopeful Rangers supporters expressing their opinion/ hopes.
Yours TBK
‘We Are Tax Payers’ 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 2 80 9759 30 5/9/2011 10:52:0 The Black Knight 10 6 “sam says:
05/09/2011 at 10:38 am
‘I wasn’t aware that anyone at Centre 1 wasn’t allowed an opinion, or to discuss the matter BK, I will let them know tomorrow, they will be grateful for your guidance, paye fancy that, I thought it was a bookies.’
are they taking Betts 🙂 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 2 94 9773 44 5/9/2011 11:33:0 The Black Knight 10 7 “Thanks Slimshady, I was hoping Sam could tell me that.
I did say that ‘in the main’ they deal with PAYE.
I am not fully aware of the Special Civil Investigations or their remit. I do not think however they are linked to the FTT. My understanding it is being dealt with from the Edinburgh based Legal Team”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 2 96 9775 46 5/9/2011 11:35:0 The Black Knight 10 8 “Chris Barrie says:
05/09/2011 at 11:30 am
‘……..However, I’d imagine that if actual tax evasion was found to be the case then you may very well find that a criminal case would be likely in due course!!’
most appropriately by the Scottish Football Association/ Members?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 2 99 9778 49 5/9/2011 11:47:0 The Black Knight 10 9 “Slim, did the NTSCI unit not relocate to Portcullis House? Just asking.”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 3 109 9788 9 5/9/2011 12:35:0 The Black Knight 10 10 “Chris, evasion and avoidance are illegal. Tax mitigation however is not.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/spotlights11.htm”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 3 111 9790 11 5/9/2011 12:39:0 The Black Knight 10 11 “Brenda Phillips says:
05/09/2011 at 12:26 pm
‘Phil seems to have some more info on the MB case’
seems he is alluding to the Season Ticket Money………… Could the Ticketus (MG05s) be as many interpreted it?????”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 3 118 9797 18 5/9/2011 13:33:0 The Black Knight 10 12 “sam says:
05/09/2011 at 12:59 pm
‘Tax evasion is illegal: you must pay taxes lawfully demanded of you. Tax avoidance is perfectly lawful…………’
I hope you are Paul Baxendale- Walker or Andrew Thornhill ! LOL
Semantics I know, but ‘avoidance’ is just that. You illegally evade tax (evasion) or knowingly avoid tax (avoidance).
That is entirely different from mitigating your tax liabilities.
‘Tax avoidance represents a significant part of the UK tax gap. Unlike evasion, it is not in itself
illegal, but it involves using the tax law to get a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It
frequently involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to
reduce tax liability. And it enables some taxpayers to gain an unfair advantage, undermining
confidence in the tax system’
‘The Government’s commitment to strengthening strategic defences against avoidance will
reduce the need for frequent changes to legislation and contribute to simplifying the tax system. In addition to the work outlined above, specific changes included in Finance Bill 2011 will
address a long-standing area of risk where payments though intermediary arrangements have
been used to avoid PAYE and National Insurance Contributions (NICs). Avoidance using
corporate finance tax rules is also being tackled through measures on mismatches between the
accounting and tax treatment of transactions.’
😉 ”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 3 119 9798 19 5/9/2011 13:38:0 The Black Knight 10 13 “Sorry Sam, forgot to say that whilst the Government and HMRC are cracking down on this, it is not necessarily illegal using a mechanism for tax mitigation (reducing your liability).
What is illegal (if proved) is knowingly and willingly using a mechanism to try and avoid paying Tax/ PAYE/ NICs.
Either way, the Government will still want its pound of flesh.”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 4 181 9863 31 5/9/2011 17:47:0 The Black Knight 10 14 “Mark D/ Ramsay, it may be. No one knows for sure. All it states in the circular to shareholders (on stock exchange) is that the debt has been assigned. Nowhere does it say it has been paid off. It has always been accepted as an assumption on here. Thats all it is. An assumption………’whataboutery’ and ‘whatifery’ have generally not been applied.
The fact that nothing was registered with the stock exchange led me to believe it may all be a big bluff. They don’t need to issue a form for public digestion for that but you would have thought some clarity would have aided his bedding in period.
The MG05s also (re season tickets) was perhaps deliberately misleading. Hence it being subsequently pulled and then amended and hidden from public view (because of this sites forensic experts).
I think PMacG may have some interesting info this week on that score………….. looking forward to that bombshell. 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 5 204 9886 4 5/9/2011 19:9:0 TheBlackKnight 57 1 “Welcome back Adam. Hope you had a good break.
Unfortunately (for you and other enlightened Rangers supporters) returning to a bit of a mess 😦 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 5 216 9898 16 5/9/2011 19:25:0 TheBlackKnight 57 2 “Adam says:
05/09/2011 at 7:11 pm
‘Looks like it TBK. The silence is deafening.’
Bang on Adam. That’s the saddest (for me) thing about all of this. Many would have a lot more respect for ‘Journalists’ and ‘those in the know’ if they just came clean.
For the Whyte Knight (or his PR vultures) to have vetoed (see G Spiers tweets) any prying questions at press conferences it makes it all of his own foolish making even if his ‘99% crap’ rings true.
Now this business with the ‘small tax bill’, ring fencing accounts, MB taking them to court and attempts to silence PMcG, Investors must surely be worried!
I know I would!”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 5 245 9927 45 5/9/2011 20:17:0 TheBlackKnight 57 3 “Adam, simple no. Crippled for a few years yes just to let us catch up in titles. 😉
That or liquidation and wipe the slate clean. Even at that I’m not sure if I would last long enough to have the new Rangers catch us 🙂
Seriously though I don’t subscribe to the ‘you need us’. It happened in the 80’s and 90’s (and earlier decades) where someone outside of Celtic and Rangers were the threat. That could be for the good?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 256 9938 6 5/9/2011 20:34:0 TheBlackKnight 57 4 “Hi EJ,
I don’t think it’s as simple as that analogy. If The Whyte Knight ‘bought’ the debt, and paid bottom dollar for it, he may only get back what he paid. (you are correct though it may depend on the mechanism liquidation/ AR). Serious questions would be asked in regard to Lloyds and Murray’s actions.
Same I suppose would apply to the valuations of the assets. They would be revalued (accurately) which may show even further the book cooking over the years and the risky borrowing against deliberately inflated assets. He can’t asset strip for profit, leaving creditors with next to nothing (or can he?)
The one definite thing is that HMRC will want their pounds of flesh in full. They will use every avenue available to the crown to make sure they do.
IMO the key to this is the purchase for £1 and the MG05s. The former effectively rendered all shares as worthless. Debentures/ investors could lose millions. The later is still a matter for debate (including whether The Whyte Knight even paid off/ bought the debt or agreed a payment scheme or used the season ticket money to cover it)”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 258 9940 8 5/9/2011 20:37:0 TheBlackKnight 57 5 “Lol EJ!
‘easyJambo says:
05/09/2011 at 8:19 pm
Should the worst for RFC hand they are liquidated, how do you belive that Celtic will mark the event?
1) A minute’s silence
2) A minute’s applause
3) A rendition of God Save The Queen in honour of HMRC’
ALL THREE 🙂 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 265 9947 15 5/9/2011 20:52:0 TheBlackKnight 57 6 “Remember this?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/football-agents-vat-bill-battle-goes-into-extra-time-1.854879
Anyone remember the outcome?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 276 9958 26 5/9/2011 21:19:0 TheBlackKnight 57 7 “P13 is a good read..,,,,,
http://www.saffery.com/pdf/publications/bu/july2011/files/july2011.pdf”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 282 9964 32 5/9/2011 21:34:0 TheBlackKnight 57 8 “P11-13………..”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 284 9966 34 5/9/2011 21:39:0 TheBlackKnight 57 9 “Mark, have to check the dates. When was the due diligence? when was the takeover? what is contained in the circular ?
Like I said interesting read…….”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 285 9967 35 5/9/2011 21:40:0 TheBlackKnight 57 10 “P16 too..,..,,”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 295 9978 45 5/9/2011 22:31:0 TheBlackKnight 57 11 “‘Application for registration of a memorandum of satisfaction
That part [or the whole] of the property charged
(a) has been released from the floating charge;
(b) no longer forms part of the company’s property. MG05s’
Further,
‘As with partly or fully paid-off charges, there is no requirement for a company to inform Companies House that its property has been released from a charge or that the property no longer belongs to the company. However, it is in the company’s own interests that potential investors and lenders are aware of this.'”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 6 299 9982 49 5/9/2011 22:42:0 TheBlackKnight 57 12 “Mark says:
05/09/2011 at 9:58 pm
‘TBK interesting read indeed, a number of other risks….’
That coupled with ‘a Scottish venture capitalist and ardent Rangers fan’
Ask Lex Parsimoniae 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 301 9984 1 5/9/2011 22:47:0 TheBlackKnight 57 13 “Duggie and EJ,
Cleared in full? Or in part? Or Assigned?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 304 9988 4 5/9/2011 22:53:0 TheBlackKnight 57 14 “https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/GerryBraiden
Wonder if this has anything to do with the VAT rumours/ MB court case/ ring fencing of accounts????”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 315 9999 15 5/9/2011 23:21:0 TheBlackKnight 57 15 “EJ, I know we are going over old ground but the debt was ‘assigned’ to Wavetower, who then reemerged as TRFCGltd. The assumption by Followers of Mr Lex Parsimoniae 😉 was that the debt was cleared.
The Memorandum (if someone has access to a copy) should state if the charge/ debt was cleared ‘in part’ or ‘in full’ as i think The Don has aluded to.
The MG05s could just have been a deliberate muddle to confuse the viewers from what the left hand was doing whilst the right hand wrote it (if you get my drift)
It was therefore removed from public view, but was amended. What that amendment was may go a long way to clearing up many theories.”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 322 10006 22 5/9/2011 23:37:0 TheBlackKnight 57 16 “Leaks and Lawsuites thread:
TheBlackKnight says:
03/09/2011 at 4:41 pm
Iain, how about you debate this?
picking up on The Honorable (Celtic fan We Are Tax Payers) Lord Wobbly’ question………
Do you think that Rangers, given the alleged ‘warchest’, and ‘billionaire’ status that is available to The Whyte Knight, have requested of the HMRC a payment scheme, due to their inability to pay?
It is on record they have made a payment in the £100k’s, not the £2.8M demanded or the appealed £1.4M in penalties.
Are you suggesting Rangers can’t afford to pay?
Yours,
Another tax paying Celtic Supporter”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 325 10009 25 5/9/2011 23:46:0 TheBlackKnight 57 17 “EVENT HORIZON?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 332 10016 32 5/9/2011 23:59:0 TheBlackKnight 57 18 “Here’s a thought (hope you are reading Whyte Knight for this bout of ‘whatifery’)
Given the statement to the stock exchange and investors
‘1a) if the Club has not suffered an insolvency event within 90 days of the Club’s appeal in relation
to the tax claim brought against the Club by HM Revenue & Customs (the ‘Tax Case’) being
finally determined, then The Rangers FC Group will either waive the debt that it has acquired or convert it into equity by way of an issue of new voting ordinary shares in the Club. The acquisition of the debt by The Rangers FC Group is described further at paragraph 2 below. However, The Rangers FC Group has separately undertaken to the Club that it will waive the debt that it has acquired and not exercise its option to convert it into equity as provided for in the Agreement;
2. Until such time as the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group is either waived or converted into equity, if the Club suffers an insolvency event or is unable to pay its debts as they fall, the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amount equal to the amounts contributed by The Rangers FC Group as set out in paragraphs 1 (b), (e) and (f) above.’
Does this event (series of events) constitute part 2?????”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 333 10017 33 6/9/2011 0:1:0 TheBlackKnight 57 19 “Iain @ 11.47
‘It would be a strange company who decided to pay a few million up front, accepting all the opportunity costs associated when an option to pay it on the drip was available.’
Says it all really 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 338 10022 38 6/9/2011 0:20:0 TheBlackKnight 57 20 “2. Until such time as the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group is either waived or converted into equity,
if the Club suffers an insolvency event or is unable to pay its debts as they fall,
the debt acquired by The Rangers FC Group shall be deemed to be increased by an amount equal to the amounts contributed by The Rangers FC Group as set out in paragraphs 1 (b), (e) and (f) above.’
No apparent ‘warchest’ but claims of a front loaded £15M-£20M
No players of value sold during the transfer window? (despite claims of debt ridden club and a reported £6.5 million bid for a player they paid £4M for a year ago)
Contracts of high earners grossly extended?
Money ‘ring fenced’ by HMRC for unpaid tax (small bill)?
Rangers sued by MB?
Rangers sued by Levy McRae?
I know what Lex Parsimoniae would think.!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 7 341 10025 41 6/9/2011 0:30:0 TheBlackKnight 57 21 “Droid, in this case I think they may have been …….. deliberately!”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 8 368 10053 18 6/9/2011 9:5:0 The Black Knight 10 15 “Mark, there isn’t any that I can see!”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 13 628 10316 28 7/9/2011 9:37:0 The Black Knight 10 16 “Mark Dickson says:
07/09/2011 at 9:18 am
RTC,
‘…….. somebody provided Whyte ie Wavetower (Rangers Football Club Group Ltd) with either the cash. collateral or the willingness to assign RFC debts to that company, either now or in the future……..’
perhaps collateral?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 15 723 10411 23 7/9/2011 19:39:0 TheBlackKnight 57 22 “easyJambo says:
07/09/2011 at 6:47 pm
Duggie ‘ have a look at this Merchant Capital press release and you may find the source of CW’s financial backing to pay Lloyds. Check who has been appointed to the advisory board of a fund which was looking to raise £50M to invest in ‘companies that are struggling to secure finance from traditional sources.’
http://www.merchant-capital.com/recent-press/launch-of-new-fund
If you mean the Gemini Fund, I recall reading it had raised something like £700k at the latest date.
The £50M hedge fund has not been quick on the uptake (as I understand)”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 759 10448 9 7/9/2011 21:5:0 TheBlackKnight 57 23 “Turnaround Case Study
The Problem
Countryliner Group Limited, a group of transport companies operating bus services for local authorities and leader in its sector in the South of England, was being squeezed by a lack of credit availability and increasing oil prices.
What Merchant Corporate Recovery PLC did for them
The turnaround strategy included working capital and stake acquisition funding
Merchant Corporate Recovery invested £200,000 for a 51% stake in a new investment company which has acquired 100% of the transport group
Provided a working capital facility of up to £300,000
In the first six months of 2009, group turnover was c£4.3m with pre-tax profits at c£250,000 and net current assets in excess of £1m.
Since Merchant Corporate Recovery involvement, debts owed to third parties (in excess of £1m) have been written off, bank borrowings repaid and the group is now trading profitably.
Turnaround Case Study
The Problem
LM Logistics Limited (‘LM’), a warehouse and transport group founded in 1973 and Syntex Logistics Limited (‘Syntex’), a company specialising in container haulage had severe cashflow problems leading to difficulties in obtaining credit.
What Merchant Corporate Recovery PLC did for them
Merchant Corporate Recovery invested £102,000 for a 51% stake in a new holding company.
This new holding company then acquired 100% of both LM and Syntex.
Merchant Corporate Recovery also provided a £398,000 loan facility to the new group.
To secure the loan, Merchant Corporate Recovery secured this against a first charge over its otherwise unencumbered assets.
top of page
Turnaround Case Study
The Problem
A Hertfordshire-based haulage company was having cashflow problems and in arrears with PAYE and VAT, as well as coming under pressure from the bank.
What Primary Asset Finance did for them
Implemented ‘Prepack’ ‘ liquidating the company and starting again
Addressed PAYE & VAT commitments
Cleared bank debt and ensured directors personal guarantees were not called upon
Freed up the second charge over the commercial site which was held by the bank’s finance subsidiary
Used this second charge more effectively for the company’s new funding requirements
Introduced a well known Invoice Discounter who refinanced the previous bank facility
Refinanced the existing vehicle fleet
Topped up some funds against the second charge, releasing enough funds to fund the new entity going forward saving the director’s house and 60 jobs
Acquisition Case Study
The Problem
A coach operator was looking to buy a competitor based on the East Coast.
Total consideration £1.9m. £1.4m on completion. £500k deferred for three years.
What Primary Asset Finance did for them
Refinanced the vehicle fleet raising £780k
Released funds from the debtor book £220k
Refinanced the existing, unencumbered, commercial site for £480k
Plus £120k overdraft facility provided by Lloyds TSB
Raised total £1.6m, giving £200k headroom from day one
Management Buy Out Case Study
The Problem
A Plant Hire business based in Bedfordshire, where the current Managing Director and minority shareholder were looking to buy out the 90% shareholder who wanted to retire.
Consideration £ 1.3m. £1.1m on completion – £200k deferred for two years.
What Primary Asset Finance did for them
Raised £ 600k against the hire fleet
Raised £ 350k against the commercial mortgage – (cleared off existing overdraft with bank)
Raised £ 600k from debtor book
Paid the £1.1m on completion – paid off the overdraft facility using longer term debt so as not to be a drain on cashflow
Leaving £100k headroom day one
top of page
Refinance Case Study
The Problem
Large print business based in London with cashflow problems.
What Primary Asset Finance did for them
Refinanced the existing presses, but negotiated a three month capital & interest holiday as well as seasonal payments to help through the quieter months
£1m refinance, injecting much needed working capital, a three month breather and a more structured facility taking into account company’s cashflow requirements
Refinance / Acquisition Case Study
The Problem
Primary Asset Finance was approached by a large invoice discounting company looking to fund a print company acquisition. The invoice discounter was able to release a certain amount of funds from the debtor book, but due to company policy were only able to advance 50% of the value of the machines. Unfortunately, this left a £200k shortfall and the deal was due to collapse.
What Primary Asset Finance did for them
Invoice discounter contacted Primary Asset Finance who have close contacts with a number of refinanciers and were able to arrange a facility advancing 120% of the equipment value, enabling the deal to work.
Both invoice discounter and client were delighted.
I’ll bet !
Remind anyone of anything?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 766 10455 16 7/9/2011 21:42:0 TheBlackKnight 57 24 “LOL Duggie 🙂
Funny that’s what I though !
I also like the remortgaging aspect, the not paying over £1M to creditors and the rearranging of a loan over a much longer period to pay off the overdraft.
Is CW into Ocean Finance? 😉
Just for you…,..,,,,,,,
‘Stick a pony in me pocket,
I’ll fetch the suitcase from the van.
Cos if you want the best ‘uns,
But you don’t ask questions,
Then brother, I’m your man.
Cos where it all comes from is a mystery,
It’s like the changin’ of the seasons,
And the tides of the sea.
But here’s the one that’s drivin’ me beserk,
Why do only fools and horses work?
La-la-la
La-lala-la
La-la-la
La-lala-la.'”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 769 10458 19 7/9/2011 21:44:0 TheBlackKnight 57 25 “EJ, agree it is plausible.”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 17 810 10500 10 7/9/2011 23:5:0 TheBlackKnight 57 33 “cautious dave says:
07/09/2011 at 10:57 pm
‘The black knight
In this particular case whyte then used the coin he just flipped to buy rangers 😉 ‘
LOL! 🙂
Queens Head he loses 🙂 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 778 10467 28 7/9/2011 22:1:0 TheBlackKnight 57 26 “tomtom, I posted this the other night.
In context of what we know and moreover, what we don’t p11-16 make interesting reading…… Especially the role of Saffery’s noted on P16 and the ‘risks’……….. Draw your own conclusions
http://www.saffery.com/pdf/publications/bu/july2011/files/july2011.pdf”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 784 10473 34 7/9/2011 22:9:0 TheBlackKnight 57 27 “Doh! Meant p13”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 788 10477 38 7/9/2011 22:14:0 TheBlackKnight 57 28 “Benjamin Franklin
‘In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.'”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 792 10481 42 7/9/2011 22:21:0 TheBlackKnight 57 29 “Adam,
‘Its then a flip of the coin as to whether somebody buys it lock stock and pays the existing debt off whilst wiping out all future debt ……….,,,,’
I thought that’s what The Whyte Knight did? 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 16 799 10488 49 7/9/2011 22:35:0 TheBlackKnight 57 30 “Adam says:
07/09/2011 at 10:27 pm
‘TBK ‘ You and I both believe that not to be the case 😉 ‘
Edited for legal reasons and accuracy 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 17 805 10494 5 7/9/2011 22:52:0 TheBlackKnight 57 31 “Here’s an interesting thought (apologies if it has been mooted elsewhere)
The MG05s appears to be signed by P Betts and refers to (well we don’t know really) perhaps the release of a charge previously owned by BoS (chargeeThis was released to”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 17 808 10498 8 7/9/2011 23:2:0 TheBlackKnight 57 32 “Ignore that! Sorry”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 17 818 10508 18 7/9/2011 23:37:0 TheBlackKnight 57 34 “RTC,
Here’s one to ponder. Re: your point in the title thread.
In the same vein, if the new owners of Rangers are (Wavetower) TRFCG Ltd, as you suggested, and purchased lock stock and barrel ALL of Rangers Football Club Plc for £1, assigned the debt (MG05s) etc etc etc
Why does the recently filed MG01s re: the Assignation of a Charge to Close Leasing (the current and future revenue from the catering contract), have Rangers Football Club Plc as the ‘Assignor’
Surely it would be the new owner/ parent company, TRFCG Ltd, listed as the holder of the Charge to be assigned (changed due to a takeover?)
Are they misleading shareholders?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 17 823 10513 23 8/9/2011 0:3:0 TheBlackKnight 57 35 “Brilliant find Black Swan, I salute you!”
The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 17 824 10514 24 8/9/2011 0:6:0 TheBlackKnight 57 36 “Any takers?
Here’s one to ponder. Re RTC point in the title thread.
In the same vein, if the new owners of Rangers are (Wavetower) TRFCG Ltd, as you suggested, and purchased lock stock and barrel ALL of Rangers Football Club Plc for £1, assigned the debt (MG05s) etc etc etc
Why does the recently filed MG01s re: the Assignation of a Charge to Close Leasing (the current and future revenue from the catering contract), have Rangers Football Club Plc as the ‘Assignor’
Surely it would be the new owner/ parent company, TRFCG Ltd, listed as the holder of the Charge to be assigned (changed due to a takeover?)
Are they misleading shareholders?”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 19 929 10624 29 8/9/2011 19:20:0 TheBlackKnight 57 37 “On a separate note:
Hope it is a good turnout for the John Hartson (HH) cancer trust tonight.
Welsh legends v England Legends,
England leg ends 3 – Welsh Legends 3 (Hartson 1pen goal)”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 19 935 10630 35 8/9/2011 19:34:0 TheBlackKnight 57 38 “Paulie, appreciate your input, however I cannot see any references within the daily roles for the Court of Session or Sherrif courts in Edinburgh or Glasgow that would indicate there is a hearing.
Can you post a link? Many thanks in advance.”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 19 940 10635 40 8/9/2011 19:45:0 TheBlackKnight 57 39 “I believe myself (and some others) raised the point a number of months ago about 3rd Lanard request to the SFA registrar.
(shock face) 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 20 955 10650 5 8/9/2011 21:7:0 TheBlackKnight 57 40 “droid says:
08/09/2011 at 8:46 pm
‘@Pmacgiollabhain Phil MacGiollaBhain
Excellent RFC source.Flurry of activity at Ibrox yesterday. Major legal move in preparation?’
Are they helping Sion with their paperwork ? 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 20 961 10656 11 8/9/2011 21:30:0 TheBlackKnight 57 41 “Reading the MG05s over and over again (well the original one not amended and hidden from view). Just want to be clear (again)
Is it possible that The Whyte Knight brokered a deal with Lloyds (BoS) that the floating charge over the assets was released except the future season ticket sales and this is possibly still held by Lloyds?
Referring back to Black Swans post, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19990808/ai_n13941344/, it appears the loan was quite substantial against the assets and a 7% share holding by Lloyds (BoS) was created.
The floating charge could easily be redirected or refinanced by way of securing the season ticket money. This may add weight to the theory that the indebtedness has not been cleared. Simply shifted on to another ‘asset’
Apologies if this has been mooted and shot down before.”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 20 980 10675 30 8/9/2011 22:13:0 TheBlackKnight 57 42 “droid says:
08/09/2011 at 10:06 pm
how about the Sions of William?
Brilliant!! LOL 🙂 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 20 981 10676 31 8/9/2011 22:15:0 TheBlackKnight 57 43 “campsiejoe says:
08/09/2011 at 10:06 pm
‘My middle name is Thomas, and you know what he was called’
Is it thumb? 😉 ”

The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits? 21 1024 10719 24 8/9/2011 23:46:0 TheBlackKnight 57 44 “Lol Andy! 🙂
Would have been funnier if you hadn’t explained it though (IMHO)……….. :/”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 3 124 11137 24 10/9/2011 13:29:0 TheBlackKnight 64 1 “timtim says:
10/09/2011 at 12:34 pm
‘I think the best part is the revelation that he has
mortgaged 4 years worth of ST money to give him a cash flow…….,’
I still don’t believe that to be true. It still reads to me that the bank have security over the future ticket sales. Just an opinion mind.”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 4 154 11169 4 10/9/2011 15:1:0 TheBlackKnight 64 2 “Statement released”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 4 175 11191 25 10/9/2011 16:56:0 TheBlackKnight 64 3 “I thought this was the most interesting part of the ‘Establishment’ Statement:
‘They will not deter us from the difficult task that lies ahead.’
Which ‘difficult task’?, is it ;
A) apologies to the SFA member clubs for deceit?
B) apologies to their support for the state in which the club now finds itself because it used ‘wrongful trading’ to gain advantage over their rivals?
C) apologies to Her Majesty for avoiding tax liabilities?
D) explaining to their support and shareholders how the future season ticket money has effectively been sold off to assist with cash flow problems?
E) explain to their support and shareholders how close they are currently to insolvency?
Or
F) taking cognisance of the above and current situation, pull the plug!”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 4 182 11198 32 10/9/2011 17:55:0 TheBlackKnight 64 4 “Sorry RTC, bit of advertising 😉
http://www.scotzine.com/2011/09/new-scotzine-feature-old-firm-columnists-coming-soon/”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 5 209 11226 9 10/9/2011 20:24:0 TheBlackKnight 64 5 “Duggie, next weeks lottery numbers? 😉 ”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 9 440 11462 40 11/9/2011 15:48:0 TheBlackKnight 64 6 “Company Name: RANGERS MATCHDAY SERVICES LIMITED
Registration Number: SC389328
If you were a Rangers supporter, you would hope they placed the money here.”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 10 459 11482 9 11/9/2011 16:36:0 TheBlackKnight 64 7 “‘when do the fraud cops get called guys? anyone know?’
Perhaps they already have? 😉 ”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 10 461 11484 11 11/9/2011 16:53:0 TheBlackKnight 64 8 “Lord Wobbly says:
11/09/2011 at 4:35 pm
St Emillion now being quaffed. Current listening? In honour of the Accountant and Sam, ‘Close To The Edge’ by Yes. (i) The Solid Time Of Change….
A man of unquestionable taste, I salute you!”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 13 620 11645 20 11/9/2011 23:22:0 TheBlackKnight 64 9 “Boy George…,,’The Crying Game’ song written by Geoff Stephens.”

Martin Bain, His lawyers, Rangers & Insolvency 13 635 11660 35 11/9/2011 23:51:0 TheBlackKnight 64 10 “What about….. The Tax My Father Paid ?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 1 37 11883 37 12/9/2011 19:35:0 TheBlackKnight 24 1 “Nice to see things back on track!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 3 138 11986 38 12/9/2011 23:35:0 TheBlackKnight 24 2 “Could the MG05s be a trust receipt? (terminology is particularly interesting given the Whyte Knights background)
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trust_receipt.asp#axzz1XmRhl5Yj”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 3 140 11989 40 12/9/2011 23:41:0 TheBlackKnight 24 3 “The inter web is sometimes a wonderful tool………
http://www.eldus.com/1720486.page”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 4 155 12005 5 13/9/2011 0:7:0 TheBlackKnight 24 4 “Droid, read your post in conjunction with RTCs reference to a ‘promissory note’.
Is it possible a Trust Receipt was set up by TRFCGLtd? Is it plausible the only way Lloyds believed they would get their money back was to accept the guarantee of the future ticket sales? Could the key to all of this be the freeing up of the ‘floating charge’ by a trust receipt?
The question I have now is, was this instructed as part of/ due to the ongoing FTT?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 4 161 12011 11 13/9/2011 0:20:0 TheBlackKnight 24 5 “The Taxman Cometh says:
13/09/2011 at 12:13 am
Perhaps. It is interesting the use of ‘released assets’ noted on an MG05s when releasing assets from a floating charge. But when read in context of a ‘promissory note’ or Trust Reciept it makes it clearer.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 4 163 12013 13 13/9/2011 0:25:0 TheBlackKnight 24 6 “droid says:
13/09/2011 at 12:13 am
£15m is coincidentally the I’m out figure quoted by Mr Whyte?
Possibly?
Or the figure in which it is noted in the ‘Bain Papers’ if they lose the Big Case The Whyte Knight is quoted as letting the club ‘go under’?
Or possibly money deposited so no Vat/Tax is liable? I remember something about Media Compainies not paying Vat/tax (or very reduced rates)
Question has to be, where did it come from?”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 4 164 12014 14 13/9/2011 0:39:0 TheBlackKnight 24 7 “http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/films/”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 4 166 12016 16 13/9/2011 0:50:0 TheBlackKnight 24 8 “Hi Duggie, no. (well I’m not – am I?)
I believe The Whyte Knight may have used a Trust Reciept to free up the floating charge. This now leaves Lloyds with the ‘promissory note’ of future season ticket money to cover their circa £18M.
What does that do? Well if I owed the king money, but was having cash flow problems, I could offer the king some security. Let’s say the future winnings in ladies handkerchiefs at jousts 😉
If the king accepts that it allows me to refinance the castle…….. If you get my drift?????”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 4 168 12018 18 13/9/2011 0:58:0 TheBlackKnight 24 9 “Duggie73 says:
13/09/2011 at 12:54 am
‘How much suspicion do the police/the vat man/the HMRC inspectors/the fraud squad need before they can seize records and conduct an investigation?’
Duggie, there is an ‘ongoing investigation’. The Whyte Knight has confirmed as much 😉 ”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 4 169 12019 19 13/9/2011 1:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 10 “And so to bed…….. Long day tomorrow! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 10 465 12330 15 13/9/2011 23:18:0 TheBlackKnight 24 11 “http://www.google.co.uk/m/search?site=images&source=mog&hl=en&gl=uk&client=safari&q=hector%20the%20taxman%20masks&sa=N#i=2
😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 13 629 12500 29 14/9/2011 15:13:0 TheBlackKnight 24 12 “zanzibar says:
14/09/2011 at 2:43 pm
Interesting piece from @iainmhepburn iainmhepburn.com/2011/09/14/mak… about @rangerstaxcase
HootSuite • 14/09/2011 14:03
I’ll second that!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 13 648 12523 48 14/9/2011 16:42:0 TheBlackKnight 24 13 “Hi Jean,
…….. read the article and its content. All will be clear.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 14 660 12535 10 14/9/2011 17:26:0 TheBlackKnight 24 14 “Good post Slimshady, I salute you!
There is a ‘good chance’ you are correct on those matters.
Bonne ChancÃ©! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 14 662 12537 12 14/9/2011 17:28:0 TheBlackKnight 24 15 “As many have already pointed out, The Whyte Knight has always said (quoted as saying) ‘We have had strong advice from our counsel (tax experts) and that advice is, that we will win!’
Do I see a crack in the marble staircase?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 14 669 12544 19 14/9/2011 17:43:0 TheBlackKnight 24 16 “I found this is particularly hilarious!!
‘Much was made in court yesterday of the club’s dispute with the legal firm, Levy & McRae yet no mention was made of the fact the club had raised a complaint with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission with regard to a potential conflict of interest.
Levy & McRae had acted for Rangers FC on many occasions and the club felt it was inappropriate for them to subsequently act against the club on behalf of the former chief executive. That matter is now with the Law Society of Scotland.’
REALLY!
I believe the clue is in the phrase ‘had acted for Rangers FC on many occasions’. They were no longer Rangers Lawyers. There was NO conflict of interest (other than their in depth knowledge of Rangers). Levy McRae were also ‘brought in’ by MB. I believe MB was their client first.
Good luck with that one. It can be a lengthy and costly journey raising a matter with the LSoS, especially if you are legally represented. I suspect The Whyte Knight will be handling this one on his own.
Don’t take your ‘eye off the lance’ Whyte Knight, you may lose your ‘great helm’ should you get hit with the ‘melee weapon’ 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 14 671 12546 21 14/9/2011 17:47:0 TheBlackKnight 24 17 “Paulie Walnuts says:
14/09/2011 at 5:43 pm
‘One thing that does puzzle me though. Its been reported they paid out Beattie’s contract because they couldn’t offload him on any terms. Why not just leave him on the books til the end so that at least some of the cost would go on the unsecured creditors’ pile?’
Always enjoy reading your posts Paulie.
In answer to your puzzle……..Could it be that the best way to lessen any ‘burden’ is to empty the accounts?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 14 677 12552 27 14/9/2011 18:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 18 “wholeheartedly agree PW.
His (Whyte’s) comments in light of what happened to NL last year, I believe have been, misleading, outrageous and very, very dangerous…………. on a lighter note however, the fan mail and flowers, from the Celtic Support, MB will get should lift his spirits.
:0”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 14 678 12553 28 14/9/2011 18:5:0 TheBlackKnight 24 19 “Agree too Ramsay Smith, or ‘prejudice’ the Judges that are considering the information before them
It would be as you rightly point out an ‘idiot or a kamikaze merchant’ that would make the claim that they had already won.
A few ‘beaks’ must have been chipped by those kind of comments.
😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 14 697 12572 47 14/9/2011 19:7:0 TheBlackKnight 24 20 “Slimshady says:
14/09/2011 at 6:35 pm
read CW’s words very carefully….’The club is trading normally and has a strong balance sheet.’
Ramsay Smith, beat me to it! (ditto)
‘Trading normally’ – not paying bills – tic
‘has a strong balance sheet’ – offset by the massive over valuation of assets – tic
Nothing to see here, move along……
LW…… not until you apologies to Jean 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 15 706 12581 6 14/9/2011 19:31:0 TheBlackKnight 24 21 “Are you seriously suggesting ‘art of war’ at play by means of this site?
I really don’t believe The Whyte Knight is that clever.
In any case …….. 27.03.2011 St RTC Wrote:
‘This blog will provide details on Rangers FC’s appeals against tax bills which the club has received for underpayment of tax going back to 2001. The case centers around what HMRC believes is the illegal use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) to avoid paying PAYE and National Insurance Contributions on payments made to players and members of the board of directors.
My motivation to write is born out of the willful ignorance of the Scottish media on this story. While they reprint unbelievable PR fiction related to Rangers as news, Scotland’s Fourth Estate has gone to great efforts to ignore the tax story. It is true that no one at Rangers is likely to be faxing this story to their pet journalists, so investigating this story would require more work than normal, but the story is there for the taking.
In the coming weeks, I will be:
• Explaining what Rangers have been accused of doing
• Exploding many of the myths and falsehoods printed in the Scottish media
• Revealing why HMRC feel so confident about this case
• Discussing the implications of HMRC winning the case on Rangers FC
I will declare at the outset that I am a Celtic supporter. However, this blog will endeavour to be dispassionate and factual. Where I am speculating, I will say so. When I am stating facts, it will also be clear. Not all of the implications of this case are negative for Rangers FC, and these will be discussed in as much depth as the other outcomes.
Hopefully, this blog can help shed some light on the most important issue facing Scottish football currently and can help be a clearing-house to dispel the many myths which will likely grow exponentially as the First Tier Tribunal resumes.’
In addition it is a ‘blog’ on ‘WordPress’, even the Whyte Knight would not be daft enough to take on.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 15 717 12592 17 14/9/2011 20:1:0 TheBlackKnight 24 22 “Andrew Thornhill?
Baxendale-Walker?
Balfour Manson?
Me? 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 15 721 12597 21 14/9/2011 20:30:0 TheBlackKnight 24 23 “Evening LW, have you apologies to Jean ? Should you be off the naughty step? 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 15 726 12602 26 14/9/2011 20:43:0 TheBlackKnight 24 24 “LW……. and you’re back in the room 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 15 739 12615 39 14/9/2011 21:22:0 TheBlackKnight 24 25 “Craig Whyte Statement
15-09-2011
STATEMENT issued by Craig Whyte, chairman of Rangers FC, on behalf of the board of directors of Rangers FC:
‘On behalf of the board of directors at Rangers I believe it is right and proper today to inform our supporters of the true financial position of the club in the wake of the recent publicity, much of it generated with the sole intention of damaging this great football club.
‘First, the board would like to make it absolutely clear that, at Ibrox, it is business as usual. The club is trading normally and has a strong balance sheet.
‘The board finds it reprehensible that the law courts have been used in recent days to suggest the club is on the brink of insolvency. It is not.
‘At the Court of Session yesterday during a hearing instigated by the former chief executive , Martin Bain, and his lawyers, the Judge, Lord Hodge, confirmed what has been already reported – that the club will face potentially serious consequences should the HMRC tax tribunal find against the club and recommend the imposition of an unmanageable liability.
‘I discussed this very issue with journalists on Monday. At this point the club’s advice from tax advisors has been that the club has a good chance of succeeding in the tribunal but it would be wholly irresponsible not to consider the potential consequences for the club should the decision be made against us.
‘No-one can say with 100% certainty at this stage what the outcome will be – that is why there is a tribunal. I can say categorically that we will be fighting the club’s case most vigorously.
‘We at the club note that during yesterday’s legal proceedings there was no mention of the fact that this potential liability from HMRC, came to the fore on the watch of the previous regime.
‘As chairman, I find it breath-taking that the former chief executive, who was in post when this issue emerged, has now sought fit to seek legal protection from its potential consequences.
‘Much was made in court yesterday of the club’s dispute with the legal firm, Levy & McRae yet no mention was made of the fact the club had raised a complaint with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission with regard to a potential conflict of interest.
‘Levy & McRae had acted for Rangers FC on many occasions and the club felt it was inappropriate for them to subsequently act against the club on behalf of the former chief executive. That matter is now with the Law Society of Scotland.
‘As I explained publicly earlier this week, Rangers FC faces challenging times ahead – as do many football clubs.
‘The current costs of the club against existing and potential revenue streams make it imperative the club operates within its means. There can be very few businesses today that are not taking this outlook on life.
‘This club has a great history and a great future – but we will have to work hard to achieve it. It is a great privilege to be the Chairman of Rangers Football Club and I will do everything I can to ensure our team and supporters enjoy continuing success in the future.
‘The focus of all of us with Rangers at heart is this weekend’s Old Firm game and I’m sure I speak for every Rangers fan in wishing Ally McCoist and the team the very best for Sunday.'”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 15 742 12618 42 14/9/2011 21:34:0 TheBlackKnight 24 26 “‘As The Black Knight, I find it breath-taking that the Whyte Knight, who carried out due diligence and was aware of this and other issues, having already emerged, has now sought fit to blame someone else for its potential consequences.'”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 756 12632 6 14/9/2011 21:53:0 TheBlackKnight 24 27 “Watch out the spelling-b’s will be out! 😉
Davy/Tomtom.
Droid and I discussed the very sane last night. It’s a bit of ‘whatiffery’ but if the money alleged to have been put in Rangers Media Account, was placed there by MB to help the club?, and as PMacG is now suggesting, the Whyte Knight cannot get his wee lance into the funds (only MB can do that as signatory), do you think the best course of action is to try to tarnish MB’s name, reduce the money available, thus increasing the debt to TRFCGLtd (Wavebyebye)?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 762 12639 12 14/9/2011 22:3:0 TheBlackKnight 24 28 “Lord Wobbly says:
14/09/2011 at 9:45 pm
‘Caveat emptor?’
Exactly! In this case I am certain it can easily translate into The Whyte Knights purchase of RFC for £1 He has been quoted/ filmed saying that he fully understood the issues. Silly really (I’m kind of starting to feel really sorry for him – he is more of a Knaive(sic) than a Knight)
Amici linguÃ¦ latinÃ¦ 😉
TBK”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 764 12641 14 14/9/2011 22:7:0 TheBlackKnight 24 29 “Auldheid says:
14/09/2011 at 9:58 pm
I salute you Auldheid! Totally agree.
Tomtom, fire away! I’m not the Internet Police 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 769 12646 19 14/9/2011 22:19:0 TheBlackKnight 24 30 “Auldheid, it’s on the Rangers FC website.
http://rangers.co.uk/default.aspx?s=news-display&aid=2451121
thedogbarks… says:
14/09/2011 at 10:03 pm
‘Where would MB have got £15M in cash from before he left the club?’
Have to ask MB or AJ if they managed to ringfence the money. (if true)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 775 12652 25 14/9/2011 22:30:0 TheBlackKnight 24 31 “LW, tried the same with PMacG and GS……… Nothing! Very unusual.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 780 12657 30 14/9/2011 22:45:0 TheBlackKnight 24 32 “Many thanks HC. Still can’t get access though 😦
I’m sure Paulie Walnuts posted confirmation of that yesterday.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 788 12665 38 14/9/2011 22:56:0 TheBlackKnight 24 33 “black swan, you are naughty….. But I like your comment! 😉
Negative goodwill is a (normally financial) gain occurring when a price paid for an asset/ acquisition is less than the market value of the net assets.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 791 12668 41 14/9/2011 23:4:0 TheBlackKnight 24 34 “Slimshady says:
14/09/2011 at 10:52 pm
Well said Slim,
David Francey RIP”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 16 794 12671 44 14/9/2011 23:16:0 TheBlackKnight 24 35 “Many thanks EJ. Did someone not point out that the accounts in 2010 showed £0.00?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 17 802 12679 2 14/9/2011 23:46:0 TheBlackKnight 24 36 “LW me too! (phew)
Hey Timtim, yes, not sure how this will play out? Did Mr King get his passport back?
Slim, great points as ever. Has it been confirmed it is Napier/ Thornhill?
WE live in interesting times…,,”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 17 805 12682 5 14/9/2011 23:52:0 TheBlackKnight 24 37 “Tom Tom…,.. Each and every evening :/????
Don’t think Lady Black Knight will be best pleased!
Also do Rangers get a ‘bye’ as they have a 5star facility 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 20 956 12838 6 15/9/2011 22:52:0 TheBlackKnight 24 38 “Excellent snoop EJ. I salute you.
So the comments previously re account being £0.00 were not that far off the mark. Good work!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 21 1038 12923 38 16/9/2011 15:37:0 TheBlackKnight 24 39 “http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14930737.stm
I think someone has to clarify this misleading article. TAX AVOIDANCE is unlawful when it amounts to deliberately avoiding paying tax. It is by no means Legal. It may not carry the same weight as TAX EVASION (which is criminal) but it is unlawful all the same if used in the incorrect manner.
Lessening your tax burden however is neither illegal, criminal or unlawful. This is done by tax mechanisms to offset/ delay or mitigate altogether your tax liability.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 22 1056 12942 6 16/9/2011 18:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 40 “black swan, beat me to it again! 😉
Personally I would say all three! (and some)
’employees’ under a ‘contract’ of ’employment’ are obliged to pay ‘income tax’ (and NIC) via their ’employer’ through ‘paye’ (and NIC contributions)
No doubt (the fanciful) ‘the accountant’ will give us guidance on where we have gone wrong in our assumptions of Rangers Players registration, their player’ employment contracts with an SPL registered club (the rules they must adhere to) and of course the small matter of Tax and N.I.C anyone in employment in this country must contribute to. (outside of the minimum tax relief)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 22 1080 12967 30 16/9/2011 21:9:0 TheBlackKnight 24 41 “ramsay smith says:
16/09/2011 at 8:26 pm
‘I didn’t word that well. I was multi tasking as I typed (pizza and coke).’
What’s hard about typing pizza and coke? 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 22 1088 12975 38 16/9/2011 21:51:0 TheBlackKnight 24 42 “Or a Diminoes Columbian Pizza ?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 22 1090 12977 40 16/9/2011 21:56:0 TheBlackKnight 24 43 “A N Other. says:
16/09/2011 at 9:41 pm
‘Is this article what the accountant is trying to hint at?’
If so, it is about as relevant as ‘the (claimed) accountant'”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 22 1100 12989 50 16/9/2011 22:29:0 TheBlackKnight 24 44 “Hugh McEwan says:
16/09/2011 at 10:02 pm
Were these payments:
1. at the discretion of the trustee? If they were, Rangers broke the rules of UEFA and SFA.
2. contractual obligations?. If they were, they are liable for tax.
IMHO there is more to this than just possible unpaid tax.
Option 1. They knowingly operated a scheme during a period that allowed them to gain (buy) a number of titles/cups and stopped valuable revenue being available to other clubs (primarily Celtic)
Option 2. Used a mechanism to avoid paying tax and NIC for employees despite those employees being contracted within the rules and regulations of UEFA and the SPL.
Tell you what Whyte Knight, you choose!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 23 1105 12994 5 16/9/2011 22:48:0 TheBlackKnight 24 45 “Lol LW,
Hope we beat the ‘squiggly rope/bird/wavy line/upside down spaghetti u-shape’ on Sunday 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 23 1108 12997 8 16/9/2011 23:4:0 TheBlackKnight 24 46 ” 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 23 1114 13003 14 16/9/2011 23:23:0 TheBlackKnight 24 47 “Lord Wobbly says:
16/09/2011 at 11:17 pm
http://p.twimg.com/AZfmkWDCIAAPwfJ.jpg:small
Genius!
Et tu brute”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 23 1116 13006 16 16/9/2011 23:40:0 TheBlackKnight 24 48 “stunney says:
16/09/2011 at 11:19 pm
Brilliant post stunney ! I salute you”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 23 1119 13009 19 17/9/2011 0:53:0 TheBlackKnight 24 49 “Erudite as always Slim 😉 I salute you!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 23 1140 13034 40 17/9/2011 11:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 50 “Regardless of Glenns schooling, it is a well written piece.
In all my years I do not believe I have ever seen the phrase ‘virulent sectarianism among their supporters’ in any newspaper when broadcasting Rangers FC problems with their support.
More power to his elbow!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 23 1143 13037 43 17/9/2011 11:22:0 TheBlackKnight 24 51 “Sam,
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 23 1150 13045 50 17/9/2011 12:10:0 TheBlackKnight 24 52 “bluebears1308 says:
17/09/2011 at 11:56 am
No offence Bluebears1308, but you should at least know your own club history.
I’m sure someone on your fan sites could point you in the correct direction.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1159 13054 9 17/9/2011 13:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 53 “This may assist:
The status of THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C. recorded at Companies house is: Active
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C. was first registered at Companies House on 01/01/1970 as a ‘Public limited with share capital’ company, registration number SC004276.
It will of course be interesting to see your ‘angle'”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1168 13063 18 17/9/2011 13:17:0 TheBlackKnight 24 54 “In 1970 when Rangers FC were first registered as a PLC, the Chairman was John Lawrence
Vice-Chairman, Matthew C. Taylor
Directors, Alan L. Morton, G.P.C. Brown, Ian McLaren, David Hope
It’s there if you know where to look”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1171 13066 21 17/9/2011 13:25:0 TheBlackKnight 24 55 “MB did not become CEO until 2005.
I will refrain from continuing on this particular red herring.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1177 13072 27 17/9/2011 13:37:0 TheBlackKnight 24 56 “paulmac says:
17/09/2011 at 1:29 pm
There are 2 types of PLC..
Private Limited Company…Public Limited Company.
Correct. The Plc (Private Ltd Co) was registered in 1970. The Public Limited Co listing?
Perhaps someone may try and point to Rangers were always a private limited company with limited share capital so you ‘cannae dae us’. It wiz that big boy that dun it and ran away….,,,,seriously is this The Whyte Knights defence???”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1190 13085 40 17/9/2011 14:21:0 TheBlackKnight 24 57 “OttoKaiser says:
17/09/2011 at 1:57 pm
Did I hear a ‘POP’?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1194 13089 44 17/9/2011 14:37:0 TheBlackKnight 24 58 “A Private Limited Co, ‘Limited by shares’ means that the company has shareholders, and that the liability of the shareholders to creditors of the company is limited to the capital originally invested, i.e. the nominal value of the shares and any premium paid in return for the issue of the shares by the company. A shareholder’s personal assets are thereby protected in the event of the company’s insolvency, but money invested in the company will be lost.
A limited company may be ‘private’ or ‘public’. A private limited company’s disclosure requirements are lighter, but for this reason its shares may not be offered to the general public (and therefore cannot be traded on a public stock exchange). This is the major distinguishing feature between a private limited company and a public limited company. Most companies, particularly small companies, are private. (Ltd)
POP!”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1195 13090 45 17/9/2011 14:44:0 TheBlackKnight 24 59 “Last note on the matter, I assume bluebear can only be referring to (Wavetower) Rangers Football Club Group Ltd as being the new owner of the PLC.
I’m unsure, if that is the case, bluebear believes Rangers will come ‘good’ out of this.
It is past tax. Tax that has been avoided for a number of years. It is still The Rangers Football Club PLC in it’s registration and payments.
Now, where did I put my angle, square, compass and hammer? 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1197 13092 47 17/9/2011 15:3:0 TheBlackKnight 24 60 “paulmac says:
17/09/2011 at 1:44 pm
‘Blacknight…there was a public share floatation in 2000 I believe…
The floatation I believe was a flop…’
…..and 2004 and perhaps 2011/2012…….. 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1198 13093 48 17/9/2011 15:7:0 TheBlackKnight 24 61 “OttoKaiser says:
17/09/2011 at 2:45 pm
True! RTC would have closed that door had there been even a slim possibility. I believe, in a Freudian kind of way, bluebear did mean ‘Angel'”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 24 1200 13095 50 17/9/2011 15:20:0 TheBlackKnight 24 62 “bluebears1308 says:
17/09/2011 at 3:12 pm
I hope for your sake it’s an Angel with very very deep pockets. DM tried to find a buyer for 7years but could only sell for £1. That speaks volumes more than any poster on an Internet forum.
Good luck with your developing case/theory”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1205 13100 5 17/9/2011 16:22:0 TheBlackKnight 24 63 “Duggie, haven’t you heard. The Angel waits in the wings. We might as well go home…… Nothing to see here….. Move along”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1214 13109 14 17/9/2011 19:21:0 TheBlackKnight 24 64 “Duggie73 says:
17/09/2011 at 5:05 pm
If CW can find an investor (free from scruples over whether or not to have the companies invested in pay tax) with c.£53mil to invest, CW can offer a well above market return on the investment…
Who would want to invest in a non profit making business? Why do you think no-one would by when Murray was desperate to sell?
This business in uninvestible, I tell you were I am, I’M OUT ! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1219 13114 19 17/9/2011 20:3:0 TheBlackKnight 24 65 “AF 🙂 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1221 13116 21 17/9/2011 20:8:0 TheBlackKnight 24 66 “Hi Duggie, sorry didn’t mean to be disparaging.
Yes, I agree, but only if the Whyte Knight was minded to run the club with little or no investment for a number of years. Why not just invest in a profit making business?
The ‘new co’ would have no history and perhaps a reduced fan base. Who would want to invest?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1222 13117 22 17/9/2011 20:11:0 TheBlackKnight 24 67 “andy Fitzpatrick says:
17/09/2011 at 8:07 pm
TBK,,50p each
Lol, I’m still out!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1235 13130 35 17/9/2011 20:46:0 TheBlackKnight 24 68 “Duggie, to mr it is a ‘no-brainer’. It is a loss making company. Even if turned around, which would take investment on an ongoing basis of at least £10M a year, it is not a massive profit making company for the investment up front.
As we see this season, no European money means an expected loss of about £2-4M
There is no money to be made. I’m still out!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1236 13131 36 17/9/2011 20:52:0 TheBlackKnight 24 69 “k3lly says:
17/09/2011 at 8:15 pm
Is that the same fan base through the bad days had crowds of less than 10,000? Or the fan base that wouldn’t invest in the club where a share capital was raised (twice). Even recently the ‘we deserve butter(sic)’ campaign, there were crowds of 18,000.
We if you want to invest go ahead, but like I said before, DM tried for 7 years with a ‘strong balance sheet’ and European football and he couldn’t shift it.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1238 13133 38 17/9/2011 20:57:0 TheBlackKnight 24 70 “A bad day for the laptop loyal says:
17/09/2011 at 8:45 pm
Wholeheartedly agree!
Should, and I mean should, ANYTHING happen to NL this season, these hacks should be held to account!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1239 13134 39 17/9/2011 21:0:0 TheBlackKnight 24 71 “Duggie, in short yes (caveat emptor…..exemplar etc etc etc)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1242 13137 42 17/9/2011 21:17:0 TheBlackKnight 24 72 “Agree Hugh, however i should have been clearer. I meant loss overall this year not loss in profit. The loss of course could be more.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1248 13144 48 17/9/2011 21:36:0 TheBlackKnight 24 73 “K3lly
See Hugh’s point above (albeit the typo) Rangers net debt this year (without tax bill/ Phoenix co etc) could be in the region of £10-20-33M”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 25 1249 13145 49 17/9/2011 21:39:0 TheBlackKnight 24 74 “Paulmac,
The red tops are dying anyway. How fitting it would be for the Celtic support to treat the paper the same way the good people of Liverpool did with the Sun.
A nail in their coffin too this year may be asking too much 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1253 13149 3 17/9/2011 21:47:0 TheBlackKnight 24 75 “Hugh McEwan says:
17/09/2011 at 9:40 pm
Hugh, another erudite point. Should Rangers fail in their tribunal, the future will be very very bleak. HMRC/ The VAT man will require ‘money up front’ and it will almost certainly decimate their credit rating or ability (as RTC has suggested) to obtain Credit.
A very wealthy individual or group willing to throw money into a non profit making company is the only answer.
I can’t see it myself, but stranger things happen in the world of football.
Can’t wait for bluebears ‘angelic proposal’ 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1254 13150 4 17/9/2011 21:53:0 TheBlackKnight 24 76 “Hugh McEwan says:
17/09/2011 at 9:41 pm
LOL Thanks TBK ‘ £33m obviously.
We live in hope 🙂 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1258 13155 8 17/9/2011 22:17:0 TheBlackKnight 24 77 “Lol Hugh, yes very unlikely.
However, The Whyte Knight is the only one that hasn’t lost money………. (yet)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1261 13158 11 17/9/2011 22:26:0 TheBlackKnight 24 78 “No offence K3lly, but where are these ‘looney Americans’?
I recall all the b*llocks about AJ and his connection to sports superstars (Tiger etc) Where was the money??
Unless you are suggesting they will turn Murray Park into an Evangelical church and Ibrox Park into the pen for the mothership to take ‘ra peepul’ to the promised land…….,, 🙂 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1263 13160 13 17/9/2011 22:37:0 TheBlackKnight 24 79 “Hugh, so far we only know for certain The Whyte Knight has ‘invested’ £1.
The dubiety exists whether he has paid off or assigned the debt and what return he can achieve. (whether through CVA/ AR/ Recievership should the ‘big case’ go against)
What is the investment?? As far as I can see there is none and no prospect of future investment.
Celtic as I see it, not unlike the last 3 seasons, is a must win season. Do that this season and it should be catastrophic for Rangers.
Like you said, back to square one, possibly £33M in debt, no prospect of investment or buyer, and we haven’t even concluded the result of the FTT.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1265 13162 15 17/9/2011 22:39:0 TheBlackKnight 24 80 “Lol Don,
I still have a brilliant article on ‘Vince the Chin’ 🙂 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1267 13164 17 17/9/2011 22:46:0 TheBlackKnight 24 81 “K3lly, EPL and RFC in terms of both skill and investment are worlds apart! There is no comparison.
The way I see it is this. Murray needed a buyer. The Whyte Knight saw an opportunity. The team failed in Europe and that curtailed the ‘billionaire’ investor / venture capitalists prospects. The Gemini hedge fund failed miserably. Now left with no European money, no outside investment and perhaps a large tax bill looming.
He is marginalised beyond even his own self belief !”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1269 13166 19 17/9/2011 22:52:0 TheBlackKnight 24 82 “Paulmac/ Hugh
http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/sep/17/football-why-kill-neil-lennon?cat=football&type=article”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1274 13171 24 17/9/2011 23:8:0 TheBlackKnight 24 83 “Don LOL! 🙂 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1275 13172 25 17/9/2011 23:16:0 TheBlackKnight 24 84 “k3lly says:
17/09/2011 at 10:45 pm
Or how about this..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/04/bedlington-terriers-billionaire-investor
Just in case ‘Oh aye the EPL…’ mob jump on me.
K3lly, one swallow doesn’t make a summer! An initial £30k investment!!
Celtic have several bona fide investors who are acknowledged multi millionaire’s and a billionaire of status. Where are the multi millions they have poured into the club.
They are businessmen. They may also be fans but first and foremost they will not throw money at a ‘maybees aye’ business model.
Thankfully we are on a reasonably good footing. Rangers however are at the edge of a precipice and no amount of sensible investment will save them!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1278 13175 28 17/9/2011 23:30:0 TheBlackKnight 24 85 “Like you said, back to square one, possibly £33M in debt, no prospect of investment or buyer, and we haven’t even concluded the result of the FTT.
k3lly says:
17/09/2011 at 10:39 pm
Why would Dave King, a South African based businessman, invest in Rangers then and maybe now?
South African based, Scots born Ulster Protestant, tax evader?
Seems to fit the bill perfectly. I’m sure there are more ‘Angels’ out there!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1280 13177 30 17/9/2011 23:43:0 TheBlackKnight 24 86 “k3lly says:
17/09/2011 at 11:34 pm
investment in a second or third division English club with the potential payments for promotion is entirely different to the SPL. Even the those who drop from EPL to Championship (circa £30m) or Championship to the lower division (circa £10m) are still better of than the SPL.
in any case, jave a good day! A happy say! A day where we will prevail!
HH
GBNL!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1283 13180 33 17/9/2011 23:52:0 TheBlackKnight 24 87 “the Don Dionisio says:
17/09/2011 at 11:44 pm
TBK,
A perfect candidate….’ a mendacious witness….a glib and shameless liar’, and I’m not talking about the singer, Dave King.
Lol 🙂
Can he ‘sing’ though! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1285 13182 35 18/9/2011 0:1:0 TheBlackKnight 24 88 “tomtom says:
17/09/2011 at 11:50 pm
Tomtom, I believe that is just it. It was a ‘sense of entitlement’ a belief, a ‘rite’.
This no longer exists.
‘They’ are running scared. Fearful of retribution! We, are not like them!
The issue over the signing of the cross will never happen.
Openly celebrating a catholic faith?? FCS they don’t allow eggs benedict or green straws! Don’t get me wrong, it would be great (different) to see. They would however be lucky to get 15,000 support at home games.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1287 13184 37 18/9/2011 0:31:0 TheBlackKnight 24 89 “Agree tomtom, however I hope you (we) are wrong.
The problems that exist within those particular cycles are evident. It’s the golf club mentality that exists within the press and to a greater extent business (including private/ exclusive membership clubs)
That still exists (and will always exist) but to a lesser degree in this day and age. Their recruitment is dissipating.
Hopefully we will no longer see the days where a professional footballer be charged with religious incitement by blessing themselves. (St Artur)
Serious events have always happened. Several supporters where murdered for the love of their club. That may never change.
However, I share your desire. Nothing would make me happier 🙂 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1289 13186 39 18/9/2011 0:38:0 TheBlackKnight 24 90 “Sam, intolerant of others beliefs? What does that make you?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1293 13190 43 18/9/2011 0:44:0 TheBlackKnight 24 91 “Perhaps Sam has some essential maintenance to carry out 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 26 1298 13195 48 18/9/2011 0:54:0 TheBlackKnight 24 92 “LW, you are entitled to your opinion. My understanding of the vast majority of our support is they have no beef with religion. In fact most of my Celtic supporting friends/ family are non Catholic / ‘p’rotestant. I do however accept there is an element that exists that reacts to that Protestant Supremicist view.
Sam, when last at a Celtic game were there collections for an organisation that no longer exists?
What has the poppy have to do with football other than a disgusting exploitation of the brave souls that died for their beliefs and cause. Not unlike others throughout history who have died for theirs?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1306 13204 6 18/9/2011 1:24:0 TheBlackKnight 24 93 “easyJambo says:
18/09/2011 at 1:13 am
Apologies EJ.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1307 13205 7 18/9/2011 1:25:0 sam 109 19 “TheBlackKnight says: protestant supremacists, you are having a laugh, you don’t get any more supremacist than Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1310 13208 10 18/9/2011 1:33:0 TheBlackKnight 24 94 “Sam,
We Are Tax Payers! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1316 13214 16 18/9/2011 2:6:0 TheBlackKnight 24 95 “Sam, since all the other Christian (Dissenting) churches came from The Holy Roman Catholic faith, why ca you not understand or accept that doctrine is applicable and more so encouraged by those chuches?
Stick to your maintenance and atheism. Religion or knowledge of does not become you.
We Are Tax Payers 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1329 13229 29 18/9/2011 9:54:0 TheBlackKnight 24 96 “k3lly says:
18/09/2011 at 5:04 am
Can HMRC collect the tax?
If Rangers lose the tribunal, yes they will collect the tax. Rangers may appeal and delay. But all they would be doing is buying time. And it is very costly.
can HMRC stop CW and pals from sidestepping the bill, recreate Rangers-xxxx, (making a profit in the transition), then sell on the newco to an external party for a profit?
No, no-one could stop them doing that, given the current circumstances. However he would have to find a buyer willing to take on the massive debt. Quite often in business a company folds leaving a shameful trail of unpaid bills to creditors. Those creditors, most likely, will never see that money again. They themselves may fold.
The Government, HMRC & VAT, is a different matter. That could be considered ‘criminal’. A deliberate attempt to evade tax, by running a business into the ground, increasing it’s debt to increase the status of a secured creditor, go bust and reopen as a newco in the same place and the same people.
Sounds great! All businesses will use this model in the future. No-one will ever have to pay tax again.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1331 13231 31 18/9/2011 10:1:0 TheBlackKnight 24 97 “LW, Yeah but they started it ! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1342 13242 42 18/9/2011 10:27:0 TheBlackKnight 24 98 “Amyerda, it’s a good question. But it may no longer be relevant.
What is done is done. The Whyte Knight bought this club with his eyes presumably open. The new owners have to pay up.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1343 13243 43 18/9/2011 10:35:0 TheBlackKnight 24 99 “Spanglebhoy, word to the wise.
Before Ramsay Smiths (joke) comment, where are the posters that are a ‘disgrace to my religion.’
Sam comes on here and accuses posters of bigotry. He continually baits posters with his comments. He, I believe, was the first one to bring in out dated doctrine into the site for purposes of creating argument.
In it’s context, he could only have meant Celtic minded posters revelling in the possible demise of an institution that encouraged religious bigotry. Agree it has no place on this site and is best ignored. But for you to come on and congratulate Sam for his comments beggars belief.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 27 1349 13249 49 18/9/2011 10:55:0 TheBlackKnight 24 100 “cp1888
You would have to ask The WhyteKnight whether he will use his silver bullet.
The rest is personal preference. Personally, no. I do not want to see a ‘favourable’ outcome.
If they avoided paying tax, that all other clubs at the time paid, then they should be punished accordingly (plus penalty and interest).
One can always say that they bought their titles by unfair means, deliberately gaining advantage, but do you think they would care? I suspect not.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 28 1351 13251 1 18/9/2011 11:4:0 TheBlackKnight 24 101 “Hugh, great post. Succinct and to the point! I salute you (again)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 28 1353 13253 3 18/9/2011 11:10:0 TheBlackKnight 24 102 “Hugh, is that an option the Whyte Knight is considering?
Bluebear (we await with interest his ‘angelic’ saviour) was referring to a technicality that may have an outcome on the case. Public vs Private Ltd Co and the ‘abilities’ of those responsible/ accountable.
Basically, the big bad boy did it and ran away!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 28 1356 13256 6 18/9/2011 11:29:0 TheBlackKnight 24 103 “Here is an interesting point if ‘whatifery’ to consider/ shoot down.
Refer back to the amended MG05s and RFCs petition to have it removed (or the amendment) from public view.
If Rangers were having an ongoing ‘discussion’ with HMRC in regard to their tax liability, do you think for one moment, the Government would allow RFC to release these charges and effectively sell off the future season ticket money.
Could HMRC applied pressure on Rangers to amend the MG05s and therefore scupper the Whyte Knights intentions of raising capital?
The petition document cross references to a number of other documents in the proceedings.
The Whyte Knights tact has changed from ‘we will win’ to ‘maybees aye maybees naw'”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 28 1372 13273 22 18/9/2011 17:30:0 TheBlackKnight 24 104 “Johnobhoyo, MIH had a complex set of companies set up and did not return accounts for a number of years. This made it difficult to ascertain what they (RFC) were paying in tax.
As Hugh said, it is not HMRCs job to ascertain how much tax you are due, rather the accountants job to professionally and honestly file a return and then HMRC can issue a bill for payment.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 28 1391 13293 41 19/9/2011 11:4:0 TheBlackKnight 24 105 “Sam has single handedly brought football and religion into the forum for the purposes of deliberately misleading, baiting, and bringing the site down.
Well done Sam, you must be proud!
Adam had highlighted this previously and the dangers of it falling into a football forum. There are plenty of sites where you can go and spread your bile. NO-ONE is interested here.
I believe I will refrain from posting until there are further developments. IN THE TAX CASE!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 34 1676 13597 26 21/9/2011 21:49:0 TheBlackKnight 24 106 “Way of topic for me, and i hope i haven’t let myself down but here’s one for Sam. You deserve it 🙂
Falkirk 3 – Rangers 2 awe GIRUY!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 34 1679 13601 29 21/9/2011 22:1:0 TheBlackKnight 24 107 “Thanks Droid 😉
I shall hitherto reposition my dignity 🙂
Small change to the Whyte Knight I suspect. Leaves them to concentrate on the league which has become an absolute necessity. (assuming they are around)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 34 1683 13605 33 21/9/2011 22:16:0 TheBlackKnight 24 108 “PL, given the revenue streams and the timing I do not believe it will gave any difference.
However, as you pointed out cash flow may have been further hampered, and perhaps to the benefit of The Whyte Knight.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 36 1773 13702 23 22/9/2011 21:19:0 TheBlackKnight 24 109 “http://www.scotzine.com/2011/09/what-happens-next-in-the-martin-bain-v-rangers-case/
Interesting read, that and the particular expertise of those noted in the link posted previously.

Rangers Bring on the Subs And Change Lawyers – Why Are They Represented By Insolvency Experts?

RTC, seems you have admirers.
Adam, very nice to see you and your balanced posts back.
Q. Adam, what significance, do you believe, are the recent actions of The Whyte Knight in appointment of his legal counsel? It does appear strange both have insolvency at their ‘heart’. Is the Whyte Knight using (cleverly) their expertise to manoeuvre himself into a position (legally)?
It appears he may be doing just that(IMHO)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 36 1779 13708 29 22/9/2011 21:33:0 TheBlackKnight 24 110 “Adam,
I believe that is the point. Who better to have dealing with the trivial matter of an employment dispute than those who have a clear understanding of the manoeuvring (‘potential end game’) required by the Whyte Knight.
However the move appears akin to appointing the Wing Commander General in charge of the Dunkirk landings. Air support may have been crucial but the overall guidance surely would have come from the Naval Command?
Just seems a wee tad strange to me.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 36 1783 13712 33 22/9/2011 21:39:0 TheBlackKnight 24 111 “iain says:
22/09/2011 at 9:27 pm
is it beyond the realms of possibility that Whytes comments about cutting the wage bioll were aimed at the players? Those on European level wages who have just failed to keep Rangers in Europe?
Or is that not machiavelian enough for this blog?
Iain,
He would have to ‘breach’ the existing (in particular the recent expansive/ lengthy) contracts that have just been given to some of the ‘top’ players.
Unless there were clauses in the contract that allowed the wages (player bonuses) to be reduced he would be in breach.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 36 1796 13725 46 22/9/2011 22:12:0 TheBlackKnight 24 112 “Adam, agree, but it was not Collier Bristow that were involved in the takeover in regard to due diligence/ insolvency etc. That was Saffery. Collier Bristow were the legal team.
‘the saffery champness corporate finance team has recently completed due diligence on the acquisition of glasgow rangers football club on behalf of craig whyte, the scottish venture capitalist and ardent rangers supporter. our team, led by charles simpson and niraj patel, linked up with craig in december of last year with the intention of assisting on the completion of a very quick deal to be done over the christmas and new year period. however, ultimately, and following a pretty tortuous path, it wasn’t until early may that the deal finally closed. craig whyte paid £1 for an 85% stake in glasgow rangers, which remains a listed company on the plus stock exchange, agreeing to take on the substantial debts of the club and put money into strengthening the team. our experts undertook the due diligence, which involved looking at all aspects of the financial and commercial operations of the club, both on and off the pitch, working alongside the legal team from collyer bristow, which undertook the legal due diligence and worked on the completion documentation. our work identified a number of previously unknown areas of risk for craig whyte, and as a result these issues were able to be dealt with prior to completion or as part of the deal terms’
I wonder if CB are still getting advice from Saffery? 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 36 1799 13728 49 22/9/2011 22:22:0 TheBlackKnight 24 113 “Hugh McEwan says:
22/09/2011 at 9:41 pm
He could always pay them through an EBT and reduce what he was actually paying out by about 50% never mind a third.
By George I think you’ve cracked it! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 37 1803 13732 3 22/9/2011 22:45:0 TheBlackKnight 24 114 “droid says:
22/09/2011 at 9:42 pm
gorrilaspotting ‘

Lol 🙂 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 37 1844 13774 44 23/9/2011 0:17:0 TheBlackKnight 24 115 “Hmmmm,
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/spl/Craig-Whyte-warns-of-lean.6835424.jp
One of our players earns at least £1.5m……..
Does that mean they are on apx £35k-£40k a week??? Pinch of salt required?
If we take a squad of 30 or so players earning half that would amount to £10m or £12m (taking into account variables as first team players being higher earners £10k-£20k p/w and lower earners £2k-£5k p/w.)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 38 1874 13804 24 23/9/2011 1:4:0 TheBlackKnight 24 116 “Hugh, perhaps the ‘incestment’ has been around £5million.
We already know that through player sales and purchases the figure being bounded around was in the region of apx £500k. Add to that the increase in salary of the existing players contracts and the new arrivals and……… Bingo!
That could be the £5m ‘investment’.
The Whyte Knight does like to mislead or at least allow others to interpret what he actually means”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 38 1876 13806 26 23/9/2011 1:7:0 TheBlackKnight 24 117 “That should of course read ‘investment’ 😦 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 38 1881 13811 31 23/9/2011 1:31:0 TheBlackKnight 24 118 “?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 38 1883 13813 33 23/9/2011 1:36:0 TheBlackKnight 24 119 “LW 15 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 38 1896 13826 46 23/9/2011 10:30:0 TheBlackKnight 24 120 “bluebears1308 says:
23/09/2011 at 10:18 am
‘He will be gone before christmas’
Will it be in the ‘Angel’ document? 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 39 1904 13836 4 23/9/2011 11:25:0 TheBlackKnight 24 121 “bluebears1308 says:
23/09/2011 at 10:45 am
TBK
CW is nothing more than a puppet for someone, great example of this sort of thing is notts county FC, Peter trembling was told the investors had money and they needed him to front the club for them.
look what happened there, they ripped the club apart, bought it for a £1 and then left near £7 million in debt.
angel will arrive
Not a great analogy then?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 39 1908 13841 8 23/9/2011 12:47:0 TheBlackKnight 24 122 “Lol Bluebear. I think the Angel will be waiting longer than Christmas though.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 39 1931 13864 31 23/9/2011 17:0:0 TheBlackKnight 24 123 “ramsay smith says:
23/09/2011 at 1:58 pm
Apologies if already posted
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH158.html
Lord Hodge states: (whilst being mindful of the potential insolvency)
‘I am satisfied that I should grant the warrant which he seeks but I propose to limit the warrant to reflect the fact that Rangers’ claim against him exists and is likely to be developed over time. It would not be appropriate in my view to ignore Rangers’ allegation that Mr Bain has been in part responsible for its predicament’
Bit damning really.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 39 1940 13873 40 23/9/2011 18:11:0 TheBlackKnight 24 124 “Lord Hodge states (in reference to Mr Ellis’ comments)
‘He submitted that while the accounts showed an apparently healthy financial picture, that picture depended on the valuation of the company’s heritable property, namely its stadium and training facilities. Further, the accounts did not provide for the substantial potential tax liability of £49 million which was now the subject of an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal from a determination by HM Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’)’
Ding dong!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 39 1947 13880 47 23/9/2011 19:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 125 “Duggie, it’s still an assessment. If Rangers can prove their case to some degree, as has been pointed out many times, then a ‘deal’ may be struck. Even if they win (say 50%) that would still leave a bill somewhere in the region of £15m-£18m plus penalties and interest. (say £22m for talking sake)
The Whyte Knight may have reduced the (unclear at present how much and by what means) debt but effectively if Rangers had a net debt of £0.00 they would effectively be back to where this saga began, but with no tax case hanging over them, a bad taste in their mouth and very little chance of credit (particularly with HMRC/VAT looking for substantial sums possibly up front)
Interesting and perhaps austere times ahead. A must win season for Celtic to pour petrol onto their pyre.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 41 2029 13968 29 24/9/2011 12:12:0 Lord Wobbly 5 94 “I just put on Sportsound and came in just as the Rangers line-up was finishing. It sounded for all the world like ‘…up front for Rangers, Ian Brines, the referee’. I’m pretty sure I’ve got that out of context. 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 41 2030 13969 30 24/9/2011 12:15:0 TheBlackKnight 24 126 “LW lol! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 42 2094 14034 44 25/9/2011 14:7:0 TheBlackKnight 24 127 “Hi Duggie,
1. Yes, a civil action
2. Yes, under oath and is subject to perjury laws
3. Depends if he is called as a witness (either by RFC or MB)
He may not be minded to turn up and it would really be up to Lord Hodge to weigh uptbe importance of him being there.
I feel if would be a disaster for The Whyte Knight should he be called. The documents MB has asked for will no doubt shed some interesting light in events leading up to, during and perhaps after the takeover. The Whyte Knight will not want this information in public domain.
Re: £1
Please feel free to donate the £1 to your favourite charity
Unless a football team comes up for sale in the very near future.
😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 42 2099 14039 49 25/9/2011 16:34:0 TheBlackKnight 24 128 “Duggie73 says:
25/09/2011 at 2:59 pm
‘Can Bain call CW as a witness? Bain’s lawyers call witnesses first, is that right?’
It really depends on the requirements of the case. Both sides will produce a list of productions(inventory),go to proof and then call witnesses. It has already been pointed out you are no longer allowed ambush situations in court. All of the information you intend to defend your side of the case must be before the court when ‘going to proof’. Outside of that is the bringing of support witnesses or cross examination of the other sides witnesses. (witnesses being those with an association to the reason the court is hearing the dispute) Whyte or another high level member of RFC, say Betts or better still MBs replacement may be called. Equally McCoist and Smith may be called. No doubt Alistair J, perhaps even David Murray.
Like I said, could get messsy
Like I said, I do not think anyone associated with Rangers PR would want the Whyte Knight to be exposed to questioning in court. Could get very messy.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 45 2205 14149 5 28/9/2011 10:42:0 TheBlackKnight 24 129 “Two points struck me,
1. ‘ He has repaid the £18 million to Lloyds, a fact confirmed by the bank,’
Really? When?
2. ‘Nothing is out of my hands because I control the club, I am the only secured creditor, or rather Rangers FC Group is. So on any decision, while HMRC might push, the group company controls the debt.’
Very interesting read for HMRC. The Whyte Knight postulating and waving a dirty rag at the government. He is basically saying if you push for the debt owed (hence we will win) we will fold the company, you get nothing, we open to trade again, debt free, and there is heehaw you can do!
interesting times!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 45 2224 14168 24 28/9/2011 12:0:0 TheBlackKnight 24 130 “Captain Bob says:
28/09/2011 at 11:42 am
‘can any experts explain why Liberty Capital is receiving monies from MHG ?’
I believe the electricity bill at Ibrox needed paying 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2253 14197 3 28/9/2011 19:0:0 TheBlackKnight 24 131 “TMWTL says:
28/09/2011 at 6:50 pm
‘Juninho was the only recipient of an EBT at Celtic
A massive difference between 1 player and circa two dozen or so at Rangers’
Also, under the stewardship of the chairman at the time, the ex governor of the BoE, Brian Quinn, Celtic ceased to continue using any form of EBT.
My understanding it was in that particular players contract terms and was for a very short period. It cannot be contrasted with the ‘abuse’ by RFC for almost 10 years and the majority of the playing squad using this tax avoidance scheme.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2255 14199 5 28/9/2011 19:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 132 “Sorry, cannot be ‘compared’ with. Doh!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2259 14203 9 28/9/2011 20:10:0 TheBlackKnight 24 133 “PW,
Or perhaps just further confirnation that the Whyte Knight no longer has the PR firm dealing with interviews.
To my mind a (another) very ‘dangerous’ statement to make.
‘Nothing is out of my hands because I control the club, I am the only secured creditor, or rather Rangers FC Group is. So on any decision, while HMRC might push, the group company controls the debt.'”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2265 14209 15 28/9/2011 21:55:0 TheBlackKnight 24 134 “Mark Dickson says:
28/09/2011 at 9:47 pm
‘ any penalities or points deduction for the insolvency events. ‘
Is that wishful thinking? ‘events’ 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2268 14212 18 28/9/2011 22:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 135 “Evening EJ.
More interesting if you take Aberdeen out of the equations.
Assuming the proposed relegated team (whoever) will always vote against RFC should an insolvency event occur (re your previous post) RFC would have to rely on all other member clubs, including Celtic, Hearts, Aberdeen to vote in their favour.
I wonder of the Whyte Knight, with no experience of running a football club, has considered that?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 46 2276 14220 26 28/9/2011 23:7:0 TheBlackKnight 24 136 “Best Young Blogger – not sure of RTCs age, so I’ll go for Andy at Scotzine 😉
Best International Blog – RTC
Best New Blog -RTC
Best Contributor to Blog or Podcast – too many to note (The Don shades it for me)
Best Tweeter – PMacG
Media Crossover Award – well since there was no media coverage – RTC
Best Podcast – what’s a podcast?
Best Blog – RTC”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 47 2346 14298 46 29/9/2011 21:18:0 TheBlackKnight 24 137 “theaccountant says:
29/09/2011 at 8:49 pm
‘I can assure the resident experts that The Revenue have already laid a criminal charge at the door of RFC. I wonder if our resident experts are aware of what it is, it should be patently obvious.’
Which part of the CIF process is being observed from your window?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 47 2350 14302 50 29/9/2011 21:25:0 TheBlackKnight 24 138 “theaccountant says:
29/09/2011 at 9:19 pm
‘it is a criminal offence to withhold payment of NI contributions within the subscribed time-scale.’
When did Rangers allegedly do this?”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2351 14303 1 29/9/2011 21:29:0 TheBlackKnight 24 139 “Do you mean ‘prescribed’?”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2354 14306 4 29/9/2011 21:33:0 TheBlackKnight 24 140 “I haven’t seen anything (or anything subscribed) that would relate to COP9.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2357 14309 7 29/9/2011 21:39:0 TheBlackKnight 24 141 “RFC have released some of the documentation, not all.
They may still ‘prove’ that the missing documents are required (relevant) when going to proof.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2361 14313 11 29/9/2011 21:48:0 TheBlackKnight 24 142 “Accountant = drivel”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2362 14314 12 29/9/2011 21:55:0 TheBlackKnight 24 143 “Gunnerb,
Perhaps, but it is straightforward procedure. In the inventory of productions MB could refer to letters or documents in his possession.
If any of those documents are cross referenced with other documents or letters (that are currently unavailable) it is a simple request to his Lordship (I don’t mean you Wobbly 😉 ) to ‘persuade’ RFCs team to produce them if relevant.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2364 14316 14 29/9/2011 21:58:0 TheBlackKnight 24 144 “Exactly (subject to their content being relevant, which I am persuaded it is)”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2366 14318 16 29/9/2011 22:2:0 TheBlackKnight 24 145 “LW 😉
Maybe, yes, no!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2370 14322 20 29/9/2011 22:10:0 TheBlackKnight 24 146 “‘BLUFF’ 😉 ”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2371 14323 21 29/9/2011 22:15:0 TheBlackKnight 24 147 “gunnerb says:
29/09/2011 at 10:10 pm
‘….any idea how long they can now delay ….post FTT verdict maybe?’
Absolutely. MB knew this, hence the ringfencing of monies.
RFC will no doubt (deliberately) drag this out. The waters will be muddied, costs will be increased.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2373 14325 23 29/9/2011 22:19:0 TheBlackKnight 24 148 “‘TRUE’ 😉 ”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2374 14326 24 29/9/2011 22:22:0 TheBlackKnight 24 149 “Or is it?
http://www.google.co.uk/m/search?site=images&source=mog&hl=en&gl=uk&client=safari&q=call my bluff&sa=N#i=8”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2375 14328 25 29/9/2011 22:34:0 TheBlackKnight 24 150 “Really don’t know why that first link didn’t work.
Sausage fingers or luddite!”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2379 14332 29 29/9/2011 23:6:0 TheBlackKnight 24 151 “LW, agreed! LOL”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2381 14334 31 29/9/2011 23:12:0 TheBlackKnight 24 152 “Lord Wobbly says:
29/09/2011 at 11:06 pm
Can someone remind me? Is MB v RFC scheduled for later in the afternoon tomoz?
It was scheduled (still is) but according to Alasdair Lamont’ tweet, it will not follow on.”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2385 14339 35 30/9/2011 0:8:0 TheBlackKnight 24 153 “MC, there are laws covering thus sort of thing.
Like any other ste with such content, the authorities would be interested to know of these goings on.”
Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2386 14340 36 30/9/2011 0:11:0 TheBlackKnight 24 154 “droid
I would ask some posters to be mindful of the potential pishing exercise being pursued by most on here having read the accountants posts. I’m off for a leak! 😉 ”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 48 2399 14391 49 30/9/2011 10:6:0 TheBlackKnight 24 155 “Whilst ploughing some vegetables on my day off I uncovered a COP9 😉
the accountant would be surprised at the CIF”

Analysis of the Bain Papers 49 2401 14423 1 30/9/2011 12:4:0 TheBlackKnight 24 156 “did he get you the ‘lowly maintenance’ (your words) job at Centre 1?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 2 71 14430 21 30/9/2011 12:22:0 TheBlackKnight 38 1 “seems to me Iain has become a little blinded by rage himself.
RTC states:
‘If (when!) Rangers become insolvent, it will be at the discretion of the receiver appointed by Whyte …………..'”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 2 77 14436 27 30/9/2011 12:35:0 TheBlackKnight 38 2 “Prefer Whyte poppies myself 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 3 136 14495 36 30/9/2011 18:25:0 TheBlackKnight 38 3 “Seems someone (perhaps short in stature) is standing on the shoulders of others for attention.
Still no word from the accountant in regard to the COP9 (which I first raised) in regard to his claims that a criminal charge had been raised against RFC.
Strange no word, other than his ‘mouthpiece’, who appears to maintain the CIF. 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 3 137 14496 37 30/9/2011 18:28:0 TheBlackKnight 38 4 “ramsay smith says:
‘It is after all worth £120m.’
How much for the gates? I know an interested party ‘out of town’ 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 3 142 14501 42 30/9/2011 19:25:0 TheBlackKnight 38 5 “LW is that the St Emillion talking 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 3 144 14503 44 30/9/2011 19:51:0 TheBlackKnight 38 6 “Hey Slim, yes I recall the post. I’m sure RTC has their reasons for not responding. I can only presume that RTC is erring on the side of caution as not to incriminate.
For me, I still laugh at the accountants comments, then when pressed, disappears into the ether.
His wee mouthpiece appears to have taken up the mantle, but with little or no understanding of the COP.
I’ll post an interesting article if the accountant graces us with his comments in regard to CIF.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 3 147 14506 47 30/9/2011 20:3:0 TheBlackKnight 38 7 “rangerstaxcase says:
30/09/2011 at 7:59 pm
‘before asking why any given course of action was or was not taken.’
Edited for accuracy 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 3 150 14509 50 30/9/2011 20:12:0 TheBlackKnight 38 8 “Lord Wobbly says:
30/09/2011 at 7:53 pm
‘Not tonight’
Sadly, the good Lady Knight has left me home alone without the key to the drinks cabinet 😦
I seriously considering darjeeling!!!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 155 14514 5 30/9/2011 21:4:0 TheBlackKnight 38 9 “Can someone clear the misunderstanding up. In the recent Telegraph article, it was claimed that the bank had confirmed the debt was repaid. Whilst there is no confirmation of this, Whyte (RFC Group) may or may not be the priority creditor, but it still being bounded around that he now holds the floating charge over the assets.
Where would one procure this info:
1. The bank debt has been confirmed as being cleared?
2. RFC Group hold the floating charge.
Surely you can only have one or the other?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 159 14518 9 30/9/2011 21:19:0 TheBlackKnight 38 10 “3. Am I turning into Duggie (no offence Duggie 😉 )”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 164 14524 14 30/9/2011 21:50:0 TheBlackKnight 38 11 “Ergo, no merlot! Yeuch!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 166 14526 16 30/9/2011 22:5:0 TheBlackKnight 38 12 “Beer first, then bacon, then more beer! 😉
Unless you are talking about your ‘carry in’ rather than the order of breakfast consumption LOL”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 169 14529 19 30/9/2011 22:29:0 TheBlackKnight 38 13 “Gwared, spoiling my fun 😦
I’m hoping for the accountant (or it’s mouthpiece) to come back to me with the finer points of the alleged CIF case.
Must be taking a long time for them to read up on it (or finding an adult to read it for them) 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 175 14535 25 30/9/2011 22:49:0 TheBlackKnight 38 14 “I’m sure the accountant will break cover soon. Perhaps he is looking over the ‘Angel in the wings’ dossier before he responds??”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 180 14540 30 30/9/2011 23:8:0 TheBlackKnight 38 15 “rangerstaxcase says:
30/09/2011 at 10:33 pm
RTC, without giving too much away. Would I be way off the mark in relation to ‘ongoing discussions with HMRC’ (quote from the Whyte Knight) and the 20th September 2011?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 193 14553 43 1/10/2011 9:21:0 TheBlackKnight 38 16 “Duggie73 says:
01/10/2011 at 2:10 am
Thanks Duggie. Agree, I don’t believe The Whyte Knight is a ‘Sam’ (as I believe it is now called).”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 195 14555 45 1/10/2011 9:36:0 TheBlackKnight 38 17 “Meeeeeeaaawwww! 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 4 198 14558 48 1/10/2011 10:19:0 TheBlackKnight 38 18 “Sam, your father has apparently been out of the loop for quite some time.
1. ‘they attained an arrestment on the total, which included the disputed penalties’
HMRC did not!
2. ‘why did and have in the first instance HMRC opt for CIF’
HMRC did not!
3. ‘a simple straight forward laying of criminal charges’
It is not simple. As you know The Ccountant claims this has been done. Still no powder though. All bluff.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 203 14564 3 1/10/2011 10:44:0 TheBlackKnight 38 19 “Well said CD!
Sam, sorry to say, but I think you are out of your depth. Get your dad to put some water wings on for you, then you can both come in and enjoy.
Tell your dad to explain the CIF procedure.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 206 14568 6 1/10/2011 11:37:0 TheBlackKnight 38 20 “Hi Hugh, I believe Sam and his dad will already be reading it.
The Accountant, more interestingly, should really get with the programme. Bluff, Bluff and Double Bluff.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 207 14569 7 1/10/2011 12:5:0 TheBlackKnight 38 21 “Accountant/ SAMs dad,
Perhaps you should read this.
http://blog.rpc.co.uk/tax-law/cop-that-hmrc-propose-a-new-contactual-disclosure-facility”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 209 14571 9 1/10/2011 12:25:0 TheBlackKnight 38 22 “That’s the one Hugh!
The ‘lowly maintenance worker’ (his words) appears to have dropped out of following his fathers footsteps in a life of HMRC accountancy and elected for a maintenance job instead.
Guess he may have been found out as the person who leaked that HMRC are in a state of panic and embarrassment which means they are definitely loosing the case (FACT!!!!!)
HMRC special investigations criminal branch local operativestask force thingy haven’t had the need for their air conditioning to be fixed of late, guess why there is no update.
No mockery here. Just pointing to what the claims are.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 212 14575 12 1/10/2011 12:50:0 TheBlackKnight 38 23 “Tommy says:
01/10/2011 at 12:37 pm
‘Why haven’t we seen them in the same room together?’
Was the air conditioning working? 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 214 14577 14 1/10/2011 13:10:0 TheBlackKnight 38 24 “Tomtom 😉
Did I hear POP!
I think you may have burst Sam/Accountant/Dad/FF/ LL balloon”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 216 14579 16 1/10/2011 13:16:0 TheBlackKnight 38 25 “Spanglebhoy, are you SAMs dad?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 220 14583 20 1/10/2011 13:38:0 TheBlackKnight 38 26 “So that’s a yes!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 224 14588 24 1/10/2011 14:38:0 TheBlackKnight 38 27 “Hey Duggie, It’s called ‘ART OF WAR’ Sun Tzu
1. Laying Plans/The Calculations explore the fundamental factors and assess the chances of victory. Due diligence by Saffery.
2. Waging War/The Challenge, understanding the economy of warfare, winning engagements decisively and at little cost to you. £1 purchase.
3. Attack by Stratagem/The Plan of Attack, show your source of strength as unity, not size! Get the fans to believe your intentions.
4. Tactical Disposition, defending existing position until you are able to come out to safety. Blame the old regime. The Whyte Knight inherited the debt and poor running of the club.
5. Energy/Directing, building momentum by showing strength at all times. Never weakness. Misdirecting is often used.
6. Weak Points & Strong/Illusion and Reality, exploit opportunities in the perceived weakness of the enemy. The Whyte Knights statements of intent – ‘WE WILL WIN!’
7. Manoeuvring/Engaging The Force, delay and deflect. Make life difficult for your enemy. Tiresome legal wrangles.
8. Variation in Tactics/The Nine Variations. Continually shifting and reacting to circumstance.
‘WE WILL WIN’, ‘We are confident we will win’ ‘ if we don’t win we have contingency’
9. The Army on the March/Moving The Force, The Whyte Knight has no experience of running a football club, he needs good advisors to mobilise through the task ahead. He has the full support of the fans. (except Adam)
10. Terrain/Situational Positioning, the three general areas of resistance (longevity, potential dangers, and obsticals) Each offer advantages and disadvantages. This would have been dealt with during due dilligence by Saffery.
11. The Nine Situations/Nine Terrains, various stages in the process relating to ‘where we are now’ to ‘where we will be’. The circular.
12. The Attack by Fire/Fiery Attack, The Whyte Knights goading of HMRC in the press.
13. The Use of Spies/The Use of Intelligence focuses on the importance of developing good information sources, perhaps by this blog?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 228 14592 28 1/10/2011 14:59:0 TheBlackKnight 38 28 “More likely the later!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 234 14599 34 1/10/2011 16:26:0 TheBlackKnight 38 29 “People are forgetting that the Whyte Knight went into this with his eyes wide open.
Due diligence in regards to the financial risks were carried out by Saffery. They mitigated certain risks and highlighted others as part of the Whyte Knights gameplan.
What will be interesting is what may substantiates this in the papers relating to the MB case. That could go heavily against Whyte and Rangers should that become public knowledge and the tribunal find in HMRCs favour. Then there may be a turn in HMRCs view of ‘cooperation’ and ‘disclosure’.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 236 14601 36 1/10/2011 17:1:0 TheBlackKnight 38 30 “rangerstaxcase says:
01/10/2011 at 3:58 pm
Hi RTC, Am i correct in saying, you have suggested, if the HMRC staff responsible for not proceeding with criminal charges (Civil Investigation of Fraud CIF) had known about the arcane aspects of Scots insolvency law (loophole), they would have progressed with a Criminal Investigation?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 238 14603 38 1/10/2011 17:7:0 TheBlackKnight 38 31 “gunnerb says:
01/10/2011 at 4:53 pm
‘Does this preclude a later criminal case?’
In short, I don’t believe it does. It depends on what has came out in the bath water of the FTT.
‘HMRC are empowered to investigate suspected tax fraud. They may conduct either a criminal or civil investigation, but criminal investigations are reserved for cases where only a criminal sanction is appropriate or where they are of the view that they need to send a strong deterrent message to the wider taxpaying public.
The existing CIF procedure offers taxpayers an opportunity to make a full and complete disclosure of irregularities in their tax affairs. In exchange for such disclosure, HMRC will not pursue criminal charges in relation to the tax fraud under investigation. In addition, HMRC may also reduce penalties to reflect cooperation on the part of the taxpayer. If, however, ‘materially false statements are made or materially false documents are provided with intent to deceive’ during the course of the CIF, then HMRC may conduct a criminal investigation with a view to commencing criminal proceedings against the taxpayer concerned. Subject to this exception, once HMRC has decided to conduct an investigation under the CIF procedure it cannot commence a criminal investigation.'”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 240 14605 40 1/10/2011 18:7:0 TheBlackKnight 38 32 “rangerstaxcase says:
01/10/2011 at 3:58 pm
‘…….known about the arcane aspects of Scots insolvency law that would provide a loophole like this,’
Loophole like what?
RTC, you have me slightly concerned. Your post suggests RFC are benefiting from this loophole.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 242 14607 42 1/10/2011 18:29:0 TheBlackKnight 38 33 “Well put Torquemada. That too could apply to numerous individuals. (Spanglebhoys continued attack of Celtic support and backing up Sam several times, the accountant etc, etc, ) Good advice! Moving on.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 5 244 14609 44 1/10/2011 18:37:0 TheBlackKnight 38 34 “Like you said Torq.
However, when you whistle the ‘dogs’ will come. Or in this case ‘oinks’ 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 6 286 14653 36 1/10/2011 23:14:0 TheBlackKnight 38 35 “Monkey say = monkey do!”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 6 287 14654 37 1/10/2011 23:16:0 TheBlackKnight 38 36 “In this case DM (chief minkey) say, board members, do.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 7 329 14698 29 2/10/2011 11:24:0 TheBlackKnight 38 37 “Right, moving on.
The ‘respondeat superior’ comment is particularly of interest. If what I believe RTC is saying is true then it has to be ‘a given’ that particular route was considered by HMRC and either dismissed or put on hold.
What would be interesting, would be to see if it was/is the CEO, Chairman, Senior Officers or Directors that would be vicariously liable.
let the master monkey say, what he instructed the monkey’s to do, but who was the master monkey to say and those to do?
Anyone for tort??
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v. Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500,
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716
Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717
This one is particularly interesting for those posters looking into the liability of RFC PLC, Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2 QB 711”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 7 330 14699 30 2/10/2011 11:39:0 TheBlackKnight 38 38 “As I recall, The Whyte Knights comments in regard to their’ (the Group) uncovering of financial inaccuracies/ irregularities and their (the Group) ongoing discussions with HMRC.
This period of openness and cooperation may be sticking in the throats of HMRC with The Whyte Knights goading of them in regard to who controls the debt.
I believe certain doors will be closing firmly on this basis.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 7 333 14703 33 2/10/2011 11:54:0 TheBlackKnight 38 39 “Gwared,
‘Respondeat Superior’ (let the master speak) ‘ is the responsibility or accountability of the superior for the acts of their subordinate.
In laymans terms, responsibility of any person of authority that has the ‘right, ability or duty to control’ the activities of an employee.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 8 353 14734 3 2/10/2011 18:10:0 TheBlackKnight 38 40 “TMWTL says:
02/10/2011 at 5:50 pm
Very well said. I salute you!
Unfortunately for some, the FF and Rearguard Bears appear to be dragging this site down by baiting posters with the intent of them responding at the same level.
We should really not need to rise above these individuals and their intent, however in many instances it is apparent that is what has to be done.
Let’s move along, nothing to see! Tort anyone?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 8 367 14762 17 2/10/2011 21:3:0 TheBlackKnight 38 41 “droid says:
02/10/2011 at 7:29 pm
‘I see the Latin was wasted….’
Pax, In aeternum”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 8 377 14774 27 2/10/2011 21:53:0 TheBlackKnight 38 42 “Duggie73 says:
02/10/2011 at 9:38 pm
Quick word for those with Latin as their mother tongue-Dingyium.
Lol! 🙂
Sure its not ‘Dinghyium’ 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 8 382 14779 32 2/10/2011 22:14:0 TheBlackKnight 38 43 “LW, I thought it was sanskrit 😉
C(h)ool! 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 8 390 14790 40 2/10/2011 23:20:0 TheBlackKnight 38 44 “In his ordo est ordinem non servare”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 8 396 14798 46 2/10/2011 23:36:0 TheBlackKnight 38 45 “iain says:
02/10/2011 at 11:27 pm
‘The question is….once Rangers are away…will Celtic (sic) have managed to overtake Motherwell?’
Hmmm, it’s an interesting question iain. To be frank, I dont think it matters much. I would happily see Motherwell lift the title. It would be great for Scottish Football. End of Rangers. That would make my century, let alone life 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 401 14804 1 2/10/2011 23:55:0 TheBlackKnight 38 46 “I suppose it depends on how recent case law has changed how an AR can be appointed.
As far as I know The Whyte Knight does not hold a floating charge over the assets 😦 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 402 14806 2 2/10/2011 23:59:0 TheBlackKnight 38 47 “I think we can keep it simple for the simpletons.
No tax liability = No Rangers FC
SIMPLES!”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 403 14807 3 3/10/2011 0:2:0 TheBlackKnight 38 48 “What floating charge? Surely the debt was paid back
Out of your depth sonny!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 413 14820 13 3/10/2011 8:57:0 TheBlackKnight 38 49 “Duggie, it’s an interesting supposition. I can’t see it. Could the authorities begin to imagine a outrage like Manchester?
Tens of thousands of marauding idiots descending on Mordor (as well as many decent supporters) baying for blood. The whole team sold off, the assets stripped, the rent due for the stadium and ‘Join the queue to renew your season ticket’
If only the bank debt hadn’t been paid eh?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 427 14842 27 3/10/2011 12:14:0 TheBlackKnight 38 50 “weeminger
1) sell Ibrox – to whom? DM tried for over 5 years and no nibbles until the Whyte Knight bought for £1.
2) find a new owner – DM tried for over 5 years and no nibbles until the Whyte Knight bought for £1.
Perhaps a share issue could be raised for ……. say £1 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 429 14844 29 3/10/2011 12:31:0 TheBlackKnight 38 51 “Hugh McEwan says:
03/10/2011 at 9:24 am
‘……. it is a reasonable comclusion that the floating charge is now held by Wavetower. That’s what allows Craig Whyte to say he controls the debt and will control whether he can strip his money out of rangers before anyone else. ‘
I don’t believe that is true Hugh. It is perhaps plausible, but in my opinion not true.
The Whyte Knight would need to notify shareholders/ investors that the floating charge still remained.(whether it be with Wavetower/ RFCGltd or still with Lloyds)
Whyte Knight has confirmed variously the debt has been paid. Therefore there is no security other than the monies owed to him for paying of the debt and any investment.
It is a breach of stockmarket rules otherwise !”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 440 14856 40 3/10/2011 13:37:0 TheBlackKnight 38 52 “Thanks Hugh, yes he has made the statement that he ‘controls the debt’.
If it is as you say then he has not paid the debt and has transferred the debt (and the subsequent floating charge) to Wavetower/RFCGltd.
There is nothing on the stock market or shareholder notification to suggest this has happened. Paulie and Liam made very eloquent posts yesterday in regard to any possible CVA route.
(Liam: 02/10/2011 at 11:22 pm/ Paulie Walnuts: 02/10/2011 at 11:20 pm)
The Whyte Knight would have to control more than 75% of the debt to scupper HMRC (and others) in a CVA situation.
If the ‘debt’ stand at around, lets say £30M, that would mean HMRC only need just over £7.5M to agree to a CVA. Considering they may be due substantially more, I believe The Whyte Knight can only have 2 or 3 options (unless I am mistaken)
1. accept that the process can only be approved by HMRC and they will want their full payment (or as much as possible) even if the club goes to the wall. This would mean selling off everything!
2. The Whyte Knight increases the debt by such a figure that HMRC are no longer 25%. (if the figures relating to the Big Tax Case are true circa £40M tax bill incl penalties and interest) That would mean Rangers net debt would need to be about the £160M plus.
3. Weemingers suggestion!
I hear Carlos Teves is for sale…. perhaps. 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 442 14858 42 3/10/2011 13:42:0 TheBlackKnight 38 53 “Oh, there is one ‘add on’ that has been mooted before.
The stadium and ‘assets’ have always been grossly over valued. A realistic and honest approach to re-valuing these so called assets could add a further £100M to the net debt.
If that is the case Rangers have been trading/ borrowing and competing whilst practically (if not fully) insolvent. Some big hitters in accountancy (those who signed off the accounts/ valuations) better have some strong PI.
I wonder if that is iain and sam’s plan? Haw Haw!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 9 445 14861 45 3/10/2011 13:48:0 TheBlackKnight 38 54 “spanglebhoy says:
03/10/2011 at 1:38 pm
what is determined as favorable? Having no liability? None whatsoever? Are Rangers exempt from paying tax and NI?
I believe only with a good wind behind them, and a monumental error by HMRC, the tax bill may be reduced to circa £15M including penalties.
Rangers could appeal the decision, may only appeal the penalties, the Tribunal may say that it has already been proven without doubt that Rangers avoided paying tax. The question would be how much! That is what is to be determined.
Like you say…… lets just wait and see.
No need to post any longer! Move on. Nothing to see!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 457 14874 7 3/10/2011 14:36:0 TheBlackKnight 38 55 “Duggie73 says:
03/10/2011 at 2:03 pm
‘If Lloyds receive payment for the debt, is the normal course of events not that the 1999 floating charge is no more, or is irrelevant, is an ex-floating charge?’
Yes! If that is the case and the debt has been repaid.
Hugh,
Thanks for the comments Hugh,
Yes, mooted on here endlessly as having as being paid back/ assigned. Whyte has been quoted/ filmed as stating the debt has been repaid. There is nothing to corroborate the debt has been transferred or that a new fixed or floating charge is in its place according to The Whyte Knights comments. (unless this was the ‘sneaky’ amendment?)
I agree the accounts should clear that one up, however it may just show debt to bank (secured/ floating charge – Lloyds) £0.00 Debt to TRFCGltd/ Wavetower £18,000,001.00
weeminger says:
03/10/2011 at 2:25 pm
weeminger! exactomundo!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 460 14877 10 3/10/2011 15:14:0 TheBlackKnight 38 56 “Duggie73 says:
03/10/2011 at 2:50 pm
LOL! My hands may still be capable. My mind on the other hand!!!! 😉 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 461 14878 11 3/10/2011 15:20:0 TheBlackKnight 38 57 “weeminger says:
03/10/2011 at 3:04 pm
‘Yet another company linked to Craig Whyte getting dissolved, this one was the behind the £50m Merchant Gemini Turnaround Fund, what does it all mean?’
This was my original take on how The Whyte Knight intended to raise funds for use on the Rangers Project. The fund appears to have failed miserably. Rumour had it standing at around £700k of the £50M hedgefund sought.
Thankfully the Whyte Knight is a man of undoubted and quantitative means with soooooooo many ventures ‘under the radar’ 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 464 14883 14 3/10/2011 17:21:0 TheBlackKnight 38 58 “Duggie73 says:
03/10/2011 at 5:16 pm
There may be a very convoluted and complex way of doing that, but why?
As you say, there is no absolute definitive proof as things stand that the Lloyds debt has been repaid.
We have to take The Whyte Knights ‘interviews and statements’ as confirmation that the bank debt has been repaid. Unless he is misquoted or in the Sky interview his words were dubbed over.
The Whyte Knight may hold a debt over Rangers Plc but he holds no floating or fixed charges that are apparent.
The question should be why would Lloyds agree to the re-assignation of the floating charge to Wavetower/TRFCGltd whilst the debt is outstanding? It does not make sense.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 471 14891 21 3/10/2011 17:37:0 TheBlackKnight 38 59 “Mark Dickson says:
03/10/2011 at 5:23 pm
offtopic:
‘Neil Lennon summoned to urgent board meeting according to twitter ‘ you Celts fans heard any whispers?’
The air conditioning broke down and Sam wasn’t available 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 474 14894 24 3/10/2011 18:56:0 TheBlackKnight 38 60 “Duggie, according to ‘that’ article, the reporter originally stated the debt was paid and this was confirmed by the bank.
It now says ‘Whyte bought a controlling stake from former chairman Sir David Murray last May for £1, assuming responsibility for £18 million of bank debt and the tax liabilities in the process.’
That is quite a rewrite !”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 481 14901 31 3/10/2011 19:52:0 TheBlackKnight 38 61 “Or, Duggie, TRFCGltd is the receiver ? 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 487 14908 37 3/10/2011 20:22:0 TheBlackKnight 38 62 “Apologies Duggie, long day……….Should have read the full article.
Paul Kelso of Telegraph Sport writes:
On 27/09/2011
(referring to The Whyte Knight)
‘assuming responsibility for £18 million of bank debt and the tax liabilities in the process’…….
‘He has repaid the £18 million to Lloyds, a fact confirmed by the bank, and transferred the debt to Rangers’ holding company,’
I hope Paul Kelso has his facts correct. The HMRC team may be looking to speak to him in regard to the confirmation that the debt is repaid, now owed to TRFCGltd and no longer is secured against the assets.
RTC Writes on the Assignment of Rangers’ Debt:
‘Given the number of new readers to this blog, it is worth repeating my questions over the terms of Whyte’s purchase of Rangers’ debt. Had Whyte paid Lloyds in-full for the debt, there would be no doubt that Whyte would have also received £18 million of priority protection (and the probable right to appoint a receiver for his own benefit). However, I have received credible information that questions whether most (or any) of the debt has been paid for. If Whyte has only signed a promissory note and not actually fulfilled his end of the transaction, the benefits of the security interest would remain with Lloyds. Whyte would have no say in events should Rangers become insolvent under these conditions. Until Whyte or Lloyds make an unequivocal statement on who holds the floating-charge on Rangers’ assets, we will not know for certain who will determine Rangers’ future.'”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 492 14913 42 3/10/2011 21:3:0 TheBlackKnight 38 63 “Would ‘ringfencing’ not make them a secured creditor?
Could be a lot of bun fights and court proceedings.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 495 14916 45 3/10/2011 21:9:0 TheBlackKnight 38 64 “Very clever, Lord Hodge
‘In my view, this carefully structured deal……………’
Premeditated, constructed, contrived……..?
RFCGroupltd/ Wavetower, has…,,,,.,secured its existing investment (£1 £18M), by which the bank was repaid (£18M)
Lord Hodge further remarks as to the possible future investment (securitisation of future ticket sales) ………. ‘commitment to make or procure further investment in Rangers against the assets of Rangers by the assignation of the bank’s securities'”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 10 500 14921 50 3/10/2011 21:18:0 TheBlackKnight 38 65 “Paulie, appreciate you knowledge in this regard.
Can you explain why TRFCGltd / Rangers PLC did not need to notify the Stock Exchange if the debt was just sold on. I’m certain this is against Stock Market rules if the debt has just been passed to another company or group without notification.
That would have a detrimental or misleading outcome on the trading of shares, existing and future investors?”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 11 501 14922 1 3/10/2011 21:21:0 TheBlackKnight 38 66 “droid says:
03/10/2011 at 9:17 pm
‘The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards (Alexander Jablokov)’
Sorry Droid 😦 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 11 505 14926 5 3/10/2011 21:28:0 TheBlackKnight 38 67 “Sir Robert Carnwath has been a Lord Justice of Appeal since September 2001, having been a judge of the High Court, Chancery Division, from 1994. At the same time he became a Privy Counsellor in July 2004, he was appointed Senior President of Tribunals, under the Government’s proposals for reforming the Tribunal system.
Previously, he was in practice as a barrister in the Chambers of the Right Honourable Geoffrey Rippon QC, MP (now Landmark Chambers). His main areas of practice were Local Government, Planning and Environmental Law, and Administrative Law. Between 1980 and 1985, he was Junior Counsel to the Inland Revenue. He took silk in 1985. He served a period as Chairman of the Administrative Law Bar Association. Between 1988 and 1994 he was Attorney’General to HRH Prince of Wales (following which he was made Companion of the Victorian Order). He was Chairman of the Law Commission for England and Wales from February 1999 until July 2002.
He has written extensively on administrative and environmental law. In 1989 he was the author of a report for the Department of the Environment on the Enforcement of Planning Control, the main recommendations of which were enacted in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Environmental Law.
Internationally, in 2004 he was a founding member, and first Secretary’General, of the European Union Forum of Judges for the Environment (EUFJE). He has been joint’chairman of the judicial advisory committee for the UNEP handbook on environmental law; and a member of the UNECE taskforce on the Aarhus Convention.
Outside the law, his main interests are in music. He is a member of the Bach Choir, and a keen amateur viola player.
.
.
.
.
A full and expansive career. Even found time to be junior counsel to HMRC.
I wonder what tune he will play when ‘Ibrox’ burns?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 11 509 14930 9 3/10/2011 21:34:0 TheBlackKnight 38 68 “Sorry Hugh, not sure if you mean me or the tune 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 11 512 14933 12 3/10/2011 21:57:0 TheBlackKnight 38 69 “OnandOn…., yes the Plus Market is lighter in it’s rules and regulations than the Stock Market.
It is still however bound by FSA/ UKLA r&r.
I was simply querying why the existing shareholders (and traders) etc have not been to my knowledge notified that the debt had been transferred and not paid off as claimed.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 11 517 14938 17 3/10/2011 22:19:0 TheBlackKnight 38 70 “PW & OnandOn……
That’s exactly the point. It has been mooted, back and forth, whether the debt has been paid back (as Whyte Knight claims and confirmed by Lord Hodge and in Paul Kelso’ article), transferred/ assigned as stated in the circular or not as recently posted by RTC.
If paid back, no security over the assets.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 11 520 14941 20 3/10/2011 22:31:0 TheBlackKnight 38 71 “G minor 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 13 608 15032 8 4/10/2011 21:7:0 TheBlackKnight 38 72 “I wonder what the 1% (non crap) was that may have accelerated the end game? Hmmmm”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 13 613 15037 13 4/10/2011 21:32:0 TheBlackKnight 38 73 “Duggie73 says:
04/10/2011 at 9:15 pm
‘TBK
skint is skint, it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the blog.’
True, but I’m sure someone mentioned VAT/ PAYE being due around that time?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 13 619 15044 19 4/10/2011 22:10:0 TheBlackKnight 38 74 “the Don, sorry to trouble you. (I hope it’s not your daughters wedding 🙂 )
Would that be a lien? Has the debt or obligation been confirmed as being paid or discharged?
Just asking!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 13 624 15049 24 4/10/2011 22:26:0 TheBlackKnight 38 75 “How far wide??
‘The firm’s (Collyer Bristow) counsel, David Edwards QC of 7KBW, told Blair J at the July hearing: ‘Without Lockton’s liability being established in advance [of Innovator One] the likely consequence of an adverse judgment against my clients, either immediately or shortly thereafter, may well be the bankruptcy of the individual claimants […], the withdrawal of their practising certificates and the collapse of the LLP.’ The firm saw the risk of bankruptcy and the LLP’s collapse as ‘very real’ and ‘a cause of discomfort and concern’, he added.'”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 13 627 15052 27 4/10/2011 22:39:0 TheBlackKnight 38 76 “Don, one last question. I thought in common law a lien cannot be transferred unless it has been satisfied?
How can Group hold ‘a put option whereby it can insist on immediate delivery form Lloyds of an effective assignation of the floating charge, and with it, the benefit of the debt,’
Forgive my ignorance, just asking!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 13 641 15066 41 4/10/2011 23:17:0 TheBlackKnight 38 77 “Many thanks The Don.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 824 15250 24 5/10/2011 22:44:0 TheBlackKnight 38 78 “droid says:
05/10/2011 at 10:09 pm
v in the salami
Salcecia, pastissada or a local favourite pezzetti di cavallo”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 830 15256 30 5/10/2011 23:9:0 TheBlackKnight 38 79 “andycol says:
05/10/2011 at 11:03 pm
‘combined with the thrifty nature of Italian cuisine’
The three C’s
cervello, cuore, con coglioni!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 17 832 15258 32 5/10/2011 23:29:0 TheBlackKnight 38 80 “Not to be confused with the 3C’s business model developed by Kenichi Ohmae’s : Corporation,Custom, Competitors
In modern-day usage: (con) Capability, Consistency (con) Cultivation
The Whyte Knight:
(con) Coercion, (con) Corruption, (con) Confusion 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 20 956 15389 6 6/10/2011 21:32:0 TheBlackKnight 38 81 “The Honest Assessment, if I may interject?
Please can you say what you mean by Rangers winning the tax case?
Are you suggesting they are not liable to pay tax?
Perhaps you should rephrase your stance to suggest the outcome may be more favourable than anticipated (circa £49M)
So say it’s a favourable outcome? 10 years of NO income tax and NIC contributions. What would that equate to?
Please also note your response should consider possible breaches in SFA/UEFA rules. Please feel free to set out your stance.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 20 972 15405 22 6/10/2011 22:19:0 TheBlackKnight 38 82 “Jonnybhoy says:
06/10/2011 at 10:13 pm
Re: part iv (been discussed in here many times previously)
I suppose one would have to look to Collyer Bristow or Saffery Champness for their input in the takeover on assessing the risks. It’s not the directors risks perse, but that of their counsel.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 21 1011 15445 11 7/10/2011 0:15:0 TheBlackKnight 38 83 “OnandOnandOnand says:
06/10/2011 at 11:51 pm
The Don
You only have to look at the rapacious chages MHG charge for raising funds to see how easy this is. 10% arrangement fee for the loan to pay off Lloyds = £1.8m Facility fees on loan @ 5% =£900k, refund of due diligence fees, £500k………….. it will go on and on and on and on…’
I would like to see that one audited by the courts 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 23 1121 15556 21 7/10/2011 20:11:0 TheBlackKnight 38 84 “LW, think you mean Paisley 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 23 1124 15559 24 7/10/2011 20:28:0 TheBlackKnight 38 85 “‘Streets of Wrath’ 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 23 1144 15579 44 7/10/2011 22:24:0 TheBlackKnight 38 86 “Gwared says:
07/10/2011 at 10:05 pm
‘Street with no shame ‘
Brilliant! LOL 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1152 15588 2 7/10/2011 23:14:0 TheBlackKnight 38 87 “LW, the ‘Grapes of Raith’ didn’t sound right to me 🙂 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1153 15589 3 7/10/2011 23:33:0 TheBlackKnight 38 88 “EJ, given the current financial climate, do you think that if such an occurrence where to happen, would any of the top 6 in the SPL vote to allow Rangers (whatever incarnation) back in?
The only one (strangely) that I believe would vote in favour, would be Celtic.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1155 15591 5 7/10/2011 23:36:0 TheBlackKnight 38 89 “‘were to happen’
Damn that Moltipulcioano 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1157 15593 7 7/10/2011 23:46:0 TheBlackKnight 38 90 “EJ, I being one of them!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1160 15596 10 7/10/2011 23:50:0 TheBlackKnight 38 91 “Hugh, unfortunately with the current (and historic) boards position, they are fearful of any potential outcome.
For many of the ‘new blood’ they couldn’t care less. (and rightly so in my opinion)
I have seen times when Hearts/ Dundee Utd and Aberdeen were the teams to beat.
I miss those days!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1164 15600 14 7/10/2011 23:54:0 TheBlackKnight 38 92 “easyJambo says:
07/10/2011 at 11:49 pm
TBY
EJ,
TBK 🙂
are you on the ‘multi’policiano too 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1165 15601 15 8/10/2011 0:2:0 TheBlackKnight 38 93 “Greenbhoy,
I suppose you would have to weigh up the value to the lower league teams. Rangers (if albeit unlikely) were to drop a division or two, the potential revenue for the ‘smaller’ clubs could be Christmas come early for them (without the carols of course ) 😉
I have always believed there is, and never should have been the ‘O.F’ tag.
I long for the days we see regular ‘competition’ with Hearts/Hibs/ Aberdeen/ Motherwell etc. Ah bliss 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1168 15604 18 8/10/2011 0:13:0 TheBlackKnight 38 94 “EJ, my limited understanding of how it works is that it wouldn’t.
The SPL has a board of directors. Those directors are responsible for the Rules/Regulations, their implementation and the day to day running of the league (finance/ fixtures/ discipline etc etc)
It is the member clubs that will decide. That said, I honestly cannot see Aberdeen, Hearts or Dundee Utd voting in favour.
Celtic on the other hand?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1170 15606 20 8/10/2011 0:18:0 TheBlackKnight 38 95 “SPL Board members are elected annually by representatives of the 12 SPL clubs and meet monthly to discuss strategic issues. The Board’s main responsibility is for corporate governance, strategic development, the delivery of the SPL objectives and the application of the SPL Rules.
The current SPL Board is made up of
Ralph Topping (SPL Chairman)
Neil Doncaster (SPL Chief Executive)
Eric Riley (Celtic FC)
Stephen Thompson (Dundee United FC)
Derek Weir (Motherwell FC)
Steven Brown (St Johnstone FC).”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1173 15609 23 8/10/2011 0:23:0 TheBlackKnight 38 96 “easyJambo says:
08/10/2011 at 12:19 am
‘I happen to believe that such an outcome could actually have the opposite effect of killing off the interest of a lot of fans across the league.’
200% !
The true fans are the ones that will suffer (including Rangers) and to the detriment of the clubs and Scottish Football in general.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1175 15611 25 8/10/2011 0:32:0 TheBlackKnight 38 97 “Paulmac, they will not intervene until the ‘event'”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1178 15614 28 8/10/2011 0:48:0 TheBlackKnight 38 98 “paulmac says:
08/10/2011 at 12:41 am
EJ @ 12.02AM…
‘Do they have a fit and proper persons test…or can Muhmar Gaddafi buy an SPL club?’
St Mirren may be for sale? Maybe even Rangers 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1184 15621 34 8/10/2011 2:10:0 TheBlackKnight 38 99 “Private Land,
‘However if the Celtic board decided that their existence was one of co-dependence with Rangers, and spouted all that symbiosis nonsense, I would see very little reason to continue as a Celtic supporter.’
See my post
TheBlackKnight says:
07/10/2011 at 11:50 pm
‘For many of the ‘new blood’ they couldn’t care less’
That is a very real question Celtic will have to answer should the situation arise.
Consider this. Celtic vote to continue Rangers existence. They are then faced with perhaps losing anything from 5000 to 15,000 support.
Even taking the minimum of 5000 support every other week, still adds up to a a whopping £100-£140k per home game (x that by 19 home games = apx £2.5M)
Is it worth voting them back in for a couple of home games against their rivals(full capacity) ?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 24 1189 15626 39 8/10/2011 10:15:0 TheBlackKnight 38 100 “Davie B,
I believe PMacG has said as much.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 25 1215 15653 15 8/10/2011 14:40:0 TheBlackKnight 38 101 “Private Land says:
08/10/2011 at 12:01 pm
Excellent post. 100% agree!
Hugh, erudite as always! I don’t believe Ashton will accept the facts or the differences in each of the examples positioned.
Paulie, could it be that Rangers are taking the ticket lottery co (can recall their name) to court fir alleged outstanding monies?
I can not see that as amounting to any great sum however.
Maybe the VAT man is coming to visit as has been noted a couple of times previously. The timings may sit with PMacG’s tweet and comments elsewhere.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 25 1240 15678 40 8/10/2011 17:27:0 TheBlackKnight 38 102 “Hugh, I guess that puts paid to the suggestion (and positioning) by the Whyte Knight (in regard to that naughty HMRC’s arrestment of monies) that ‘discussions’ were ongoing?
‘(1)the customer has misled us or been untruthful
(2) the customer defaults on the arrangement or (3) does not satisfy the conditions of their TTP
any other reason comes to light (4) where it becomes apparent that tax is at risk’
My money is on 1, 2,3 and 4 🙂 ”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 25 1241 15679 41 8/10/2011 17:29:0 TheBlackKnight 38 103 “Hugh McEwan says:
08/10/2011 at 5:26 pm
One more relevant addition to the last
Won’t Pay
‘ ‘Won’t pay’ is simply defined as the customer who can, but will not, make payment. (5) Where the customer shows that they have the means to pay we won’t agree a TTP arrangement and will look to take enforcement action as soon as possible.’
My money is still on 1-4 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 25 1245 15683 45 8/10/2011 18:0:0 TheBlackKnight 38 104 “Booooooooooooo 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1255 15694 5 9/10/2011 9:11:0 TheBlackKnight 38 105 “The Honest Assessment says:
09/10/2011 at 12:49 am
‘Rangers are in discussion with GCC, with the view of GCC’s apprentices, learning their trade within the confines of Ibrox, to facilitate with the refurbishment.’
No offence, but I believe you may have your wires crossed. As part of the Commonwealth Games 2014 (in which Ibrox will host some Rugby matches) there is scope for minor refurbishment work to the stadia. (‘a lick and a spit’ so to speak ). Yes you are correct this service is free and provided by the council. It is not however a stadium refurbishment programme. Celtic too are benefiting from this free work, however I believe as the events being held at CP may be of more importanance, the spend is significantly more.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1257 15696 7 9/10/2011 9:23:0 TheBlackKnight 38 106 “Lord Wobbly says:
09/10/2011 at 9:16 am
‘RFC should have one star, behind Celtic’s European Cup and Aberdeen’s CWC and Super Cup, but RFC couldn’t stomach that so invented their own star system’
Out of this world ! LW Out of this world! 😉
I am glad that Celtic didnt consider going down the same route with the EBT or the 4 green stars and LARGE GOLD star on their tops.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1262 15701 12 9/10/2011 10:34:0 TheBlackKnight 38 107 “Here’s a good piece of ‘whatifery’.
I picked up on a posters (Think it was Mark?) comments in regard to ‘events’.
This suggested there may be more than one!
If, as we all know from the circular, Rangers suffer an insolvency event for the ‘wee bill’, Whyte has the option to waive the debt (circa £4.2m?)
What if this happens before the main event (Big Tax bill)? He would have satisfied the requirements and undertakings noted in the contents of the takeover circular but it does not account for a second event. What then?
Or he may have been referring to the rugby ‘events’ 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1269 15708 19 9/10/2011 11:59:0 TheBlackKnight 38 108 “The Honest Assessment says:
09/10/2011 at 11:37 am
‘What I heard was about an ongoing programme of works that are outwith the present arrangement.’
I sincerely hope Rangers PL and Insurances are up to date.”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1270 15709 20 9/10/2011 12:6:0 TheBlackKnight 38 109 “The Honest Assessment,
I have to agree with Hugh.
It is inconceivable that the council would allow such a measure. There are far more worthy benefitors to such a scheme. Whether they be charities, churches or public buildings such as hospitals, museums and libraries.
Certainly not businesses, especially businesses that fail to honour their tax commitments.
The council will be in a very difficult (including legal) position for the misappropriation of government funds. Can you tell us who sanctioned such an agreement?
I heard Rangers were going out of business very soon. Doesn’t mean to say it will happen (soon) 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1274 15713 24 9/10/2011 12:34:0 TheBlackKnight 38 110 “I believe THA has been a bit confused with the apprenticeships for young footballers. Perhaps soon to replace the first team 😉
There is absolutely no question or substantiation that works are being carried out or that funds are being misappropriated.
The press would be all over it. Suggest we ignore that one too.
Much like The Accountant/ Sam/ Spanglebhoy, when asked to ‘put up or shut up’, their silence is golden! Nice! 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1276 15715 26 9/10/2011 12:40:0 TheBlackKnight 38 111 “To be Honest, Honest, honestly you must try harder. You stated:
‘The Honest Assessment says:
09/10/2011 at 12:49 am
‘Rangers are in discussion with GCC, with the view of GCC’s apprentices, learning their trade within the confines of Ibrox, to facilitate with the refurbishment needs,oh! and it’s all for free.
Check it out.’
You did not say initially that this was hearsay. You posted it as FACT!
You also state : ‘check it out’
Where?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1277 15716 27 9/10/2011 12:44:0 TheBlackKnight 38 112 “Hugh, exactly!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1279 15718 29 9/10/2011 12:52:0 TheBlackKnight 38 113 “Consider yourself Mocked!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1283 15722 33 9/10/2011 13:1:0 TheBlackKnight 38 114 “The Accountant/ Sam/ The Honest Assessment/ Spanglebhoy.
The Whyte Knight is currently in discussion with a MAJOR supermarket chain with the view of selling off Ibrox Stadium for the construction of a shopping centre to meet with the tax liability.
Check it out.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1285 15724 35 9/10/2011 13:7:0 TheBlackKnight 38 115 “v says:
09/10/2011 at 1:00 pm
More likely the deal will run it’s course (funds may need to be returned or accepted as a loss) then when it is renewed the other half perhaps offered to Hearts or maybe St Mirren. 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1292 15732 42 9/10/2011 14:2:0 TheBlackKnight 38 116 “Johnobhoyo, hardly imploding? We have more dignity than that.
Unless you mat be referring to being beaten by a superior football team on the park, a team playing on a level playing field against their rivals despite various set backs to their rivals with death threats to players and management, bombs and a campaign of ‘honest mistakes’ ?
Yeah, we are really imploding and using the smoke and mirrors of rangers apparent demise to distract from our poor showing in the circumstances. Hmmmmm”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 26 1294 15734 44 9/10/2011 14:5:0 TheBlackKnight 38 117 “The Honest Assessment says:
09/10/2011 at 1:38 pm
Mind how you go!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 27 1305 15745 5 9/10/2011 16:9:0 TheBlackKnight 38 118 “I don’t believe RTC has ever said directly anyone was guilty of criminal acts. It does appear to be the general consensus on here that that is the case.
What is know, or believed to be known, is that the board at the time of the use of the EBT schemes, knowingly implemented these schemes in the knowledge that the use of these schemes and the particular application (the way in which they were implimented) were at best dubious, possibly criminal.
HMRC may still have that option available to them. They are alive to the possible prospect of criminal charges. As will be those Rangers directors involved. (perhaps the flurry of activity PW alerted us to)”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 27 1315 15761 15 9/10/2011 17:12:0 TheBlackKnight 38 119 “Johnobhoyo says:
09/10/2011 at 5:03 pm
So why are HMRC not bringing criminal charges against those persons at RFC who constructed and used this EBT scheme?
When has HMRC said that they are not? I believe they are busy in a tribunal.
Please see the previous posts in regard to options available to HMRC posted by myself and Hugh among others. This is perhaps still an option the CIF have available to them.
You could of course ask the accountant or Sam as they asked the same question and were given the same answers.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 27 1318 15764 18 9/10/2011 17:23:0 TheBlackKnight 38 120 “Also look at COP9”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 27 1324 15771 24 9/10/2011 17:39:0 TheBlackKnight 38 121 “There is a huge difference between using tax measures to minimise your tax liability than tax avoidance and evasion.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1358 15807 8 9/10/2011 21:27:0 TheBlackKnight 38 122 “‘Softly, softly catchy monkey. Get the result in the FTT, cement your case and prove the point. The rest will follow should the evidence be sufficient.’
Exactly tilldeathusdopart
Rangers asked for for the case to be taken to tribunal not HMRC. who knows what is going on in the background……..,, mmmwwwwwhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa !”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1361 15810 11 9/10/2011 21:51:0 TheBlackKnight 38 123 “Sorry Hugh, I too think it is unlikely (not impossible) I just wanted to do the ‘mmmwwwwwhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa!'”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1362 15811 12 9/10/2011 21:54:0 TheBlackKnight 38 124 “ashton says:
09/10/2011 at 9:45 pm
‘As rangers disagreed with HMRC what other recourse did they have but a tribunal.’
As Rangers hadn’t paid their taxes HMRC issued an assessment for payment. What else could they do?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1367 15816 17 9/10/2011 22:35:0 TheBlackKnight 38 125 “De omnibus dubitandum”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1372 15821 22 9/10/2011 22:51:0 TheBlackKnight 38 126 “longtimelurker says:
09/10/2011 at 10:37 pm
I’M SPARTACUS! 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1377 15826 27 9/10/2011 23:0:0 TheBlackKnight 38 127 “Allegedly so.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1380 15829 30 9/10/2011 23:12:0 TheBlackKnight 38 128 “longtimelurker says:
09/10/2011 at 10:53 pm
‘So am I mate.
There must be some ‘news’ about to break this week.
Ho hum’
Are you fishing? 😉
Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 28 1384 15833 34 9/10/2011 23:18:0 TheBlackKnight 38 129 “Hugh McEwan says:
09/10/2011 at 10:53 pm
‘We are all RTC’
Lol 😉
And so’s my mum 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 30 1469 15918 19 10/10/2011 19:52:0 TheBlackKnight 38 130 “Johnobhoyo,
1. ‘I’ve got a few bob to invest and I think I’ll stick it in a fixed rate bond for a year.’
Good luck with that! You may still have to pay tax. Whether it is capital gains or seen as an income top up. HMRC can only evaluate what tax is due based on your self assessment. If you choose to mislead then that is up to you. If found out, I don’t think they will be best pleased, especially if it was deliberate misleading.
2. ‘I’d love to know how RFC managed to pay substantially less tax than they were due for a number of years yet still haven’t done anything illegal?’
If as you state, Rangers ‘managed to pay substantially less tax than they were due’ then they have no complaints with the basis for the assessment. It has just to be quantified.
I am sure it will all become clear in the deliberations of the tribunal. As stated before go and read up on HMRC procedures.
3. ‘if it turns out that there has been no criminal offence committed, surely that means………….. After all what crimes have RFC committed?’
None that we know of (yet), if at all. I believe Aulheid’s post related to Rangers apparent abuse of the EBT system in paying more money for professional footballers services and giving an unfair advantage, potentially.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 30 1475 15924 25 10/10/2011 20:3:0 TheBlackKnight 38 131 “Paranoid Timdroid says:
10/10/2011 at 8:00 pm
‘ Is it a call to arms for Rangers fans by painting the bleakest possible picture? You’re club needs you now more than ever type of thing?’
I certainly not paranoid, but have to say, you beat me to it!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 30 1487 15936 37 10/10/2011 20:39:0 TheBlackKnight 38 132 “Genetically Modified, that would be certain obfuscation 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 30 1497 15946 47 10/10/2011 21:47:0 TheBlackKnight 38 133 “Something is very rotten in the heart of this mess!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 31 1504 15955 4 10/10/2011 22:32:0 TheBlackKnight 38 134 “‘The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look.’
â€• Julius Caesar”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 31 1509 15960 9 10/10/2011 22:52:0 TheBlackKnight 38 135 “Andy fitzpatrick says:
10/10/2011 at 10:46 pm
I left my wife for this site,,, xxxxRTCxxxxx
I laughed out loud reading this! As the good Lady Black Knight gave me a strange look :0”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 31 1513 15964 13 10/10/2011 23:0:0 TheBlackKnight 38 136 “I may have availability in the East Wing come November 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 31 1517 15968 17 10/10/2011 23:6:0 TheBlackKnight 38 137 “PW. perhaps some more relevant documentation ?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 31 1522 15973 22 10/10/2011 23:18:0 TheBlackKnight 38 138 “And now, the end is here
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I’ll say it clear
I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain
I’ve lived a life that’s full
I traveled each and ev’ry highway
And more, much more than this, I did it my way
Regrets, I’ve had a few
But then again, too few to mention
I did what I had to do and saw it through without exemption
I planned each charted course, each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this, I did it my way
Yes, there were times, I’m sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew
But through it all, when there was doubt
I ate it up and spit it out
I faced it all and I stood tall and did it my way
I’ve loved, I’ve laughed and cried
I’ve had my fill, my share of losing
And now, as tears subside, I find it all so amusing
To think I did all that
And may I say, not in a shy way,
‘Oh, no, oh, no, not me, I did it my way’
For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!
Yes, it was my way………….”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 35 1736 16216 36 12/10/2011 2:20:0 TheBlackKnight 38 139 “I too thought of the grammarand ouctuationand slpellign was pooron heresince responseof RTC. mademe believe such imposter!!!!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 39 1902 16388 2 13/10/2011 0:3:0 TheBlackKnight 38 140 “Paulie Walnuts says:
12/10/2011 at 11:02 pm
‘Oh, and a blast from the past. On re-reading Bain’s summons I believe I may have cracked the floating charge/season ticket mystery.’
Nice one Paulie! (on the assumption you are indeed correct)
If the ST money was released,(as appears to be noted as ‘released assets’ in the MG05s it would show in one of Rangers/partners accounts as a substantial deposit? (Rangers Media Investments for talking sake).”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 41 2029 16520 29 14/10/2011 11:13:0 TheBlackKnight 38 141 “Following on from PW and Duggies comments, is it at all plausible that the club was sold to the Whyte Knight for £1, with proviso(s) that there would be investment. (refer to take over panel comments and circular)
The ‘investment’, by a relatively unknown (below radar) VENTURE CAPITALIST billionaire has not been forthcoming.
The investment targets were not reached or at the very least not fulfilled due to the extraneous factors in the Financial Market and the fact that European money had been seriously considered within their business plan.
This proviso(s) has not been met. Hence the possible considerations by Murray.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2111 16603 11 15/10/2011 0:2:0 TheBlackKnight 38 142 “Guinnessjohn says:
14/10/2011 at 11:53 pm
Slowly slowly catchy monkey!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2115 16607 15 15/10/2011 0:56:0 TheBlackKnight 38 143 “Guinnessjohn says:
15/10/2011 at 12:34
TBK , yes , I think I get that . Problem is , like a monkey , I have no patience .
All part of the ‘grand plan’…… Evolution takes patience 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2117 16609 17 15/10/2011 1:7:0 TheBlackKnight 38 144 “LW, not like me to be disagreeable but…, as an example
Paul Lambett (personal favourite) Norwich City – summer spend (currently 9th in EPL)
INS: Steve Morison (Millwall, £2.8m), James Vaughan (Everton, £2.5m), Anthony Pilkington (Huddersfield, £2.5m), Daniel Ayala (Liverpool, undisclosed), Elliott Bennett (Brighton, £1.8m), Bradley Johnson (Leeds, free). Loans: Ritchie de Laet (Man Utd), Kyle Naughton (Tottenham)
£9.6m in, Contrast that with the bigger clubs and revenue available (assume circa £30 conservative estate for promotion) . I suppose we can only review this at the end of the season.”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2120 16612 20 15/10/2011 1:25:0 TheBlackKnight 38 145 “Duggie, are you suggesting AR ?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2124 16616 24 15/10/2011 1:44:0 TheBlackKnight 38 146 “Guinnessjohn, way off! Thanks for the insult though! Sorry I’m not up to your standard. Obviously the intention of the wink 😉 is lost on you (embarrassed face)
LW, sorry, misinterpreted the ‘ It’s madness. Rangers are paying the price and I have no doubt that the EPL clubs currently teetering on the brink will follow. It’s only a matter of time.’
Apologies. Yes, PL and Norwich appear to be a sustainable model. ‘Multi’pulciano Just kickin’ in 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2126 16618 26 15/10/2011 1:51:0 TheBlackKnight 38 147 “Guinnessjohn says:
15/10/2011 at 1:02
‘Which disaster was that ? LW , I`m genuinely intrigued . What new stadium was that .?’
Possibly the ibrox disaster of 1971 and the 3 new stands in the 1980’s? Perhaps”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2127 16619 27 15/10/2011 2:5:0 TheBlackKnight 38 148 “Guinnessjohn says:
15/10/2011 at 1:34 am
‘most pathetic piece of nonsense ever to try and make a mark’
I am genuinely perturbed (upset and annoyed) by that comment than your initial jibe!
Why would I try to ‘make my mark’? I am genuinely too humble for that amongst those on here who post with knowledge and cognisance.
I hope that I question?. I hoped that I contribute? It is to me, about placing stakes in the ground. To cut off avenues of retreat by those apparently ‘in the know’. Only by learning, knowledge is gained! (IMHO)
Being a contributer (albeit perhaps not in the same way many are perceived) to this site for a long time, I find it informative and liberating!”
Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2128 16620 28 15/10/2011 2:11:0 TheBlackKnight 38 149 “Rab, for what it is worth. Thank you!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2131 16623 31 15/10/2011 2:30:0 TheBlackKnight 38 150 “Hey Duggie, sorry just being flippant re:AR
‘Have you considered and discounted the possibility of a backer who has promised funds to Whyte and renaged on an agreement between gentlemen?’
No/ yes. Gemini fund failed miserably. Sought to raise £50M, raised circa £700k. Hedge fund/ investment is not forthcoming , nor is it likely to be for the VENTURE CAPITALIST (spin the wheel/ throw the dice)
In my ‘weak’ opinion, not that it matters to the likes of Guinessjohn, ‘freemasonry’ holds no water in the taxcase. The loans given to RFC from BoS, yes! The land deals afforded to MIG/ PPG, yes! The ‘deals’ of succulent lamb to the so called Scottish free press, yes!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 43 2133 16626 33 15/10/2011 2:35:0 TheBlackKnight 38 151 “rab says:
15/10/2011 at 2:25 am
‘TBK
no problem, rest assured that in the fullness of time, your posts will be remembered as factual, honest and in good intention. Play on.’
Many thanks Rab. Honest and Good intention, yes.!
Factual? Not sure on that one. Expessing opinion yes. Challenging what is posted (often from a point of no standing whatsoever) yes!
How else are we to decifer what is being said?
There are always two sides to a coin. It just depends on what side is face up when it lands.
Your comments are welcomed though!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 45 2221 16719 21 17/10/2011 10:3:0 TheBlackKnight 38 152 “variously:
‘These resignations have been communicated by letter to the chairman, Craig Whyte,’
the statement reads:
‘John McClelland and John Greig, both being of the opinion that, since the change of ownership they have been excluded from participating in corporate governance at the club.’
Thats an interesting statement. I have always believed JG was a great ambassador for his club. Why would he resign now and include the ‘excluded from corporate governance’? Are Rangers about to hit the wall?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 46 2252 16750 2 17/10/2011 11:56:0 TheBlackKnight 38 153 “Thought this was interesting, having read the summation from Lord Hodge again.
‘I accept that the appeal against the HMRC determination is at an early stage and that there is scope for appeals by either party from the First tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal and thereafter the courts’
Why would The Rangers Footbal Club go to court? Is Lord Hodge alive to the prospect of criminal charges being pursued?
Has this alerted the directors to possible culpability?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 46 2256 16754 6 17/10/2011 12:22:0 TheBlackKnight 38 154 “rangerstaxcase says:
17/10/2011 at 12:05 pm
Black Knight
‘I think he is just referring to the venues for further appeals (if granted).’
Thanks RTC, but what jurisdiction would the Court have should RFC fail in the FTT and the Upper Tribunal?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 46 2262 16760 12 17/10/2011 12:43:0 TheBlackKnight 38 155 “Many thanks Paul, it does however state that this is with the Upper Tribunals approval and must be based on a point of law. It is unlikely that Rangers, should they lose the FTT, not appeal to the Upper Tribunal, but to appeal the Upper Tribunal decision (should they fail again) on a point of law would be extremely unlikely, far less unusual and be viewed by the Tribunal as wasting the Courts time. (IMHO)”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 46 2267 16765 17 17/10/2011 12:55:0 TheBlackKnight 38 156 “Paul McConville says:
17/10/2011 at 12:51 pm
Many thanks Paul.
Has ‘the big boy dunnit and ran away’ been written in statute yet? 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 46 2269 16767 19 17/10/2011 13:0:0 TheBlackKnight 38 157 “Paul, on a side note. Excellent blog!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 47 2338 16836 38 17/10/2011 19:10:0 TheBlackKnight 38 158 “Inference and perception can often be miles apart!”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 48 2371 16869 21 17/10/2011 23:17:0 TheBlackKnight 38 159 “Loved the lay persons guide on Newsnight. The graphics reminded me of Peter Snow and the ‘swingometer’ 🙂
Glad to see the ‘mainstream’ taking note, however slightly disappointed no credit to RTC given that most, if not all of the subject matter (99%crap) appears to have been lifted from this blog.
Looking forward to the next installment 😉 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 48 2379 16877 29 17/10/2011 23:25:0 TheBlackKnight 38 160 “Hugh McEwan says:
17/10/2011 at 11:19 pm
‘The financial expert was frightened to actually say what he believed.
Or possibly was told not to because they intend saying it in a couple of days.’
Perhaps so!
Or
Is RTC able to issue a writ for plagiarism?”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 48 2383 16881 33 17/10/2011 23:35:0 TheBlackKnight 38 161 “I hear you LW! I hear you! (ps not the echo)”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 48 2390 16888 40 17/10/2011 23:46:0 TheBlackKnight 38 162 “timtim says:
17/10/2011 at 11:17 pm
‘I wood like to know what was said
cannae get bbc here’
Basically pretty much the timeline and possible(and actual) consequences from the Whyte Knight’s takeover.
As follows:
1. Whyte Knight buys club for £1 in May.
2. Takeover panel express concerns.
3. No board meetings have been held since the takeover.
4. Potential tax bill highlighted
5. EBT’ missuse over apx 10 years explained in overview
6. Ringfencing of funds by court order highlighted in regard to HMRC and MB court cases.
7. A total of 8 Directors/ Board Members, either stepped down/ resigned or sacked since the takeover. Leaving the question of who is running the day to day business.
Apologies if I missed anything.
The Whyte Knight’s ‘Ivory Tower’ must be getting lonely and empty (hmmmmm, ideal for an echo……..)”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 48 2391 16889 41 17/10/2011 23:51:0 TheBlackKnight 38 163 “Lord Wobbly says:
17/10/2011 at 11:37 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shhhhh! It might hear you…. Hear you….. Here you! 🙂 ”

Craig Whyte’s Confessions: A Critical Analysis 49 2408 16964 8 18/10/2011 11:2:0 TheBlackKnight 38 164 “I believe thats the trouble CO, the sports hacks (outside of the quality print) are of limited understanding of the goings on
I include myself in that bracket 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 3 111 17021 11 18/10/2011 13:14:0 TheBlackKnight 54 1 “Hugh McEwan says:
18/10/2011 at 12:36 pm
Rangers Circular released 3rd June 2011
P6. part iii point 1.(e) confirms as much”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 6 282 17196 32 18/10/2011 20:18:0 TheBlackKnight 54 2 “Jean,
Edited for accuracy
‘It may be the kick in the arse that the BBC needed to see what their Scottish station has been doing, they wont be happy that the second largest and second most succesful league club in Scotland have isolated the BBC.'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 7 318 17232 18 18/10/2011 21:54:0 TheBlackKnight 54 3 “Thomas, (I fear GuinnessJohn may disagree)
It’s nice however that you mention me (and others) in dispatches, but I am sure they would all agree unwarranted. There have been many contributors to this site, with varying agendas and takes on life.
PMacG did some amazing investigative journalism and RTC’s drive and clarity has brought the many issues regarding Rangers and their financial situation to the forefront of the Scottish (perhaps British) footballing public.
Input from PaulMcC, Paulie, The Don, Hugh On&On……and Adam, to name but a few (humour, sometimes twice over from LW 😉 of course ) have assisted those of us with a better legal understanding of the goings on and the possible and varied outcomes. Nothing is still certain.
There will be lots more to come I’m sure!
The ‘core’ of this site is and will always be forever RTC!
Longtimelurker???
RTC, 4th? Really!!!!!!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 7 320 17234 20 18/10/2011 21:57:0 TheBlackKnight 54 4 “Hugh McEwan says:
18/10/2011 at 9:54 pm
rangerstaxcase says:
18/10/2011 at 9:51 pm
Whyte will doubtless have tried to Carter Ruck them
============================
‘Both a prominent legal firm and rhyming slang.’
LOL! 🙂 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 7 326 17240 26 18/10/2011 22:13:0 TheBlackKnight 54 5 “Only kidding LongtimeLurker. 😉
You could add your good-self too, Gwared and the ‘elusive’ blackswan to name a couple more. There are too many to mention!!!
Oops I forgot ‘big up’ to Sam, his dad, and the accountant! 😉 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 7 327 17241 27 18/10/2011 22:15:0 TheBlackKnight 54 6 “Lord Wobbly says:
18/10/2011 at 10:05 pm
LOL 🙂
don’t start that again Wobbly, don’t start that again Wobbly,”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 7 331 17245 31 18/10/2011 22:20:0 TheBlackKnight 54 7 “Is it just me or is there a ‘bhuoyant mood’ in the air? 🙂 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 7 333 17247 33 18/10/2011 22:24:0 TheBlackKnight 54 8 “Duggie too!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 7 343 17258 43 18/10/2011 22:37:0 TheBlackKnight 54 9 “I was going to say I raise my ‘doublewood’ to you all!!
😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 7 345 17260 45 18/10/2011 22:43:0 TheBlackKnight 54 10 “Mark Dickson says:
18/10/2011 at 10:26 pm
Agree!
Mark Dickson says:
18/10/2011 at 10:37 pm
‘Ha ha did anyboy see the sign on newsnight in the coffee shop? it was a crown with the sage words underneath ‘keep calm & carry on.’ priceless!’
A ‘big up’ to the BBC graphics department. Watching the news earlier and couldn’t help notice the crack between the BBC and RFC logos.
Not quite a ‘broken crest’, but we are nearly there 🙂 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 351 17266 1 18/10/2011 22:50:0 TheBlackKnight 54 11 “Lord Wobbly says:
18/10/2011 at 10:44 pm
90% of Rangers fans support a protest against the BBC. FACT!
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=202032&pid=1059477147&st=0&#entry1059477147
Having not paid tax for a number of years it doesn’t surprise me their fans will be cancelling their TV license fees 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 355 17270 5 18/10/2011 22:56:0 TheBlackKnight 54 12 “Gwared says:
18/10/2011 at 10:44 pm
The debt is owed by the company. RFC Plc. Unless they cease to exist, the debt, as I understand, will remain with them.
(hence the NewCo scenario much mooted)”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 356 17271 6 18/10/2011 22:57:0 TheBlackKnight 54 13 “Mark says:
18/10/2011 at 10:50 pm
stiff ones all round!
Thank God someone got that! 😉 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 357 17272 7 18/10/2011 22:58:0 TheBlackKnight 54 14 “LW, WDY 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 361 17276 11 18/10/2011 23:3:0 TheBlackKnight 54 15 “I wonder if The Whyte Knight has been reading up on this……….
http://www.debtscotland.com/generalinsolvency.cfm
Could come in handy if he can’t afford a good lawyer 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 369 17284 19 18/10/2011 23:27:0 TheBlackKnight 54 16 “LW,
Lots of eye (watering) opening stuff. I wonder if the RST will ask the questions of the Whyte Knight.
‘Whatiffery’ may be entering the OED on a new level of understanding. Descriptive adverb relating to the proposition that there is always another perspective.
Perhaps ‘howcome’ and ’cause’ too! 😉 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 370 17285 20 18/10/2011 23:33:0 TheBlackKnight 54 17 “Jonnybhoy says:
18/10/2011 at 11:15 pm
Anyone figure out the reason the 27/28th are going to be historic?
There were several theories, including planetary alignment!
The most popular appear to be the possible 60day period from arrestment or the VAT due date.
My money is on the good men (and women) of Her Majesty’ Revenue & Customs (IR)”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 372 17287 22 18/10/2011 23:44:0 TheBlackKnight 54 18 “S214 very interesting reading. Not suggesting for a minute…..;)”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 388 17303 38 19/10/2011 0:16:0 TheBlackKnight 54 19 “Lord Wobbly says:
18/10/2011 at 11:47 pm
LOL 😉
I believe John Greig may be leading with that very question.
guinnessjohn says:
18/10/2011 at 11:56 pm
No worries Guinnessjohn! We all have our bad days. (hopefully taken in the right context this time 😉 )
paulmac says:
18/10/2011 at 11:50 pm
The date is also the feast of St Jude…the patron saint of lost causes….you couldn’t make it up!
One of my favourite days, and tunes (Na-na-na na na na) !!!!!
A lost cause, perhaps. Pray for them 😉

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 390 17305 40 19/10/2011 0:25:0 TheBlackKnight 54 20 “Paul McConville says:
18/10/2011 at 11:50 pm
Excellent stuff Paul. Many thanks
longtimelurker says:
19/10/2011 at 12:14 am
Totally agree.! (Stunney too)”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 8 393 17308 43 19/10/2011 0:40:0 TheBlackKnight 54 21 “Tell that to Socrates 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 13 601 17523 1 19/10/2011 22:48:0 TheBlackKnight 54 22 “black swan says:
19/10/2011 at 10:14 pm
I’m in!!!
Duggie can I have that £1 now ? 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 754 17683 4 20/10/2011 19:6:0 TheBlackKnight 54 23 “Criminality! Who’d of thought it 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 756 17685 6 20/10/2011 19:10:0 TheBlackKnight 54 24 “Mullet & co!!!!!!
Comedy Gold 🙂 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 758 17687 8 20/10/2011 19:23:0 TheBlackKnight 54 25 “I am both saddened and astonished that an accomplished gentleman such as AJ could align himself with such an horrific slogan!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 766 17695 16 20/10/2011 19:36:0 TheBlackKnight 54 26 “gunnerb says:
20/10/2011 at 7:32 pm
Agree, but any ounce of sympathy I held, seeing he was clearly and visibly upset,was lost in that ‘N_ S_______’ slogan!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 768 17697 18 20/10/2011 19:41:0 TheBlackKnight 54 27 “The Whyte Knight being struck off as a Director explains much in regard to the set up of Wavetower. He couldn’t be a Director hence Ellis set it up for him.
Interesting background indeed. Roll on the end of ‘Historic’ October 2011”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 776 17706 26 20/10/2011 19:53:0 TheBlackKnight 54 28 “LW, nice!
Double Wood ? 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 781 17711 31 20/10/2011 20:5:0 TheBlackKnight 54 29 “Hugh McEwan says:
20/10/2011 at 7:44 pm
Apologies Hugh, I believe LW may be correct. (it does makes sense if he was indeed ineligible)
I’m sure it was noted in the programme that The Whyte Knight had bought and moved into a castle and still had apx 6months to run on his exclusion of directorship. Allegedly The Whyte Knight bought The (Ivory Towers) Castle in 2006.
So a number of years after the exclusion.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 783 17713 33 20/10/2011 20:8:0 TheBlackKnight 54 30 “timtim says:
20/10/2011 at 8:01 pm
I have a triple wood if anyones interested

Laphroaig Triple Wood

No offence Timtim but I would only strip the floorboards with that stuff 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 787 17717 37 20/10/2011 20:13:0 TheBlackKnight 54 31 “LW
‘Signature’ is for very special occasions! Perhaps later this month 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 792 17722 42 20/10/2011 20:22:0 TheBlackKnight 54 32 “Apologies if already posted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15377454
Despite being struck off for 7 years from 2000, The Whyte Knight appears to have had a ‘controlling interest’ in companies up until 2003/2004.
The question should be to the ‘legal beagles’ out there, what is the expiry date for action, should the authorities consider?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 16 795 17725 45 20/10/2011 20:25:0 TheBlackKnight 54 33 “A N Other. says:
20/10/2011 at 8:19 pm
KDS comes up trumps yet again. Beautiful artwork.
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=10837700&t=8587161
Pedant I know, but is that ‘THE’ new Rangers Football Club logo 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 803 17733 3 20/10/2011 20:41:0 TheBlackKnight 54 34 “chico says:
20/10/2011 at 8:32 pm
Excellent choice! (more my cup of ‘tea’)
Re:
‘Lloyd’s are withdrawing our credit if we don’t sell to a man we don’t want too. What we think his plan for our club is…’
Seems Lloyds had a greater say in this sale (perhaps to recoup funds or offload a toxic debt) than first thought!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 808 17738 8 20/10/2011 20:47:0 TheBlackKnight 54 35 “Lord Wobbly says:
‘At least Mark Dickson will be happy that we’re spending our money in Scotland tonight’
LOL!
Nectar points are up this month. The Good Lady Black Knight will be pleased 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 820 17751 20 20/10/2011 20:56:0 TheBlackKnight 54 36 “MidlothianCelt says:
20/10/2011 at 8:46 pm
‘I see Craig Whyte has instructed well-known libel laywers Carter Ruck to act in his action against the Beeb.
Hope he’s got deep pockets ‘ these heavy-hitters don’t come cheap!’
Well known, perhaps. ‘heavy-hiters’, perhaps not.
Even a legal trainee at the BBC is smart enough to script the programme with ‘it is alleged’ or ‘we have been told’ or ‘it is believed’
All the points made were ‘allegations’ based on or arising from factual information at hand or from key witnesses.
Good luck with that one Whyte Knight
(stereotyped paranoid Celt in me says, ‘is the Whyte Knight increasing his costs deliberately’……. No that was my inner voice, not my paranoia…. ‘or was it’…… 🙂 )”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 826 17757 26 20/10/2011 21:4:0 TheBlackKnight 54 37 “ramsay smith says:
20/10/2011 at 8:54 pm
Do you mean another £80M added to the £700M MIH are into Lloyds for their ‘toxic’ bank debt?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 829 17760 29 20/10/2011 21:7:0 TheBlackKnight 54 38 “Hugh McEwan says:
20/10/2011 at 9:02 pm
Hugh, I too am seeing a different side to you tonight!!
I laughed out loud at that! Brilliant! 🙂
(I’ll caveat that until I find out whom / what ‘Giddy’ is )
😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 837 17768 37 20/10/2011 21:20:0 TheBlackKnight 54 39 “Interesting read! (especially the last para)
http://www.completeformations.co.uk/companyfaqs/company_director/disqualification.html
Also,
‘What is the effect of a disqualification order or disqualification undertaking?
Unless he or she has court permission, the person is disqualified for the period stated in the order or undertaking from:
being a director of a company;
acting as receiver of a company’s property;
directly or indirectly being concerned or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company; or
being a member of or being concerned or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a limited liability partnership.
He or she is also absolutely disqualified during the disqualification period from acting as an insolvency practitioner.’
Corporate Recovery anyone?”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 838 17769 38 20/10/2011 21:25:0 TheBlackKnight 54 40 “Hugh McEwan says:
20/10/2011 at 9:17 pm
LOL! 🙂 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 839 17770 39 20/10/2011 21:29:0 TheBlackKnight 54 41 “I wonder of the BBC are drafting the letter as we speak 😉
http://businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1084624503&type=RESOURCES”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 17 847 17778 47 20/10/2011 21:39:0 TheBlackKnight 54 42 “MidlothianCelt says:
20/10/2011 at 9:34 pm
Perhaps, and it is a very big but conceivable perhaps, the information has only come to light.
The Whyte Knight has freely admitted he operates under the radar! 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 18 863 17796 13 20/10/2011 21:55:0 TheBlackKnight 54 43 “Paul McConville says:
20/10/2011 at 9:51 pm
Was hoping one of the venerable legal beagles would come on and tackle this.
What is the statute on….. d) information only becoming available 5years after the end of the disqualification?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 18 886 17819 36 20/10/2011 22:54:0 TheBlackKnight 54 44 “Paul McConville says:
20/10/2011 at 10:17 pm
‘But the Insolvency Service knew about it, allegedly, when winding up Re-Tex.’
Thanks Paul. Not being disingenuous but was more in reference to ‘below radar’ activity of the Whyte Knight.
By this ‘muck raking’ I can only wonder what new allegations come to the fore.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 18 889 17823 39 20/10/2011 23:4:0 TheBlackKnight 54 45 “Barcabhoy, great points!
7. Is spurious at best (IMHO) due to the wording. You could take it as ‘HAS BEEN disqualified….. within 5 years’
The Whyte Knight HAD been under disqualification up until 4 years ago. Not disqualified in the last 5 years
10. Absolutely! As with Betts and Ellis. So ‘Newco’, it appears, could only be via a new party or Group.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 18 892 17826 42 20/10/2011 23:11:0 TheBlackKnight 54 46 “greengrass says:
20/10/2011 at 10:49 pm
‘…would a previous creditor not have a claim?’
Possibly, allegedly 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 18 896 17830 46 20/10/2011 23:16:0 TheBlackKnight 54 47 “Barcabhoy,
‘(10) he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association which
has undergone an insolvency event within the five year period preceding the said insolvency event.’
It would be interesting to note how many companies (including Corporate Recovery failures) have been wound up/ declared insolvent in the last 5years.
How many fingers am I holding up 😉
The muck is being raked!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 20 985 17922 35 21/10/2011 12:48:0 TheBlackKnight 54 48 “Jim McGinley/ Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
21/10/2011 at 12:02 pm
‘Being claimed on twitter that in the event of Insolvency Whyte will walk away with £12m?
Also being tweeted from the court that Bain’s Lawyers are claiming that the current Rangers Board are offering incentives to those who will help fight Bain’s case!’
By Whom?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 20 989 17926 39 21/10/2011 12:53:0 TheBlackKnight 54 49 “@Pmacgiollabhain
Phil MacGiollaBhain
#HH #ff @rangerstaxcase…. it is very difficult to overestimate the role this blog has had in breaking open the Craig Whyte story’
High praise indeed! (and deservedly so IMHO) Well done RTC and contributers!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 20 991 17928 41 21/10/2011 13:0:0 TheBlackKnight 54 50 “the idea that ‘casus fortuitus’ (being an event or chance occurrence or indeed an unforseen or unavoidable accident {Force Majeure} ) in relation to Rangers current position and how they may use it to their benefit is quite frankly ridiculous. (IMHO)
They knew of the tax liability and the possible outcomes. The Whyte Knight and Saffery confirmed as much in the due dilligence. Therefore NO CHANCE of chance occurrence or unavoidable incident!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 22 1071 18010 21 21/10/2011 19:29:0 TheBlackKnight 54 51 “I and many others are with you rab (except the bit about sending Celtic the money in any case – in Gods name why?)”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 24 1195 18138 45 22/10/2011 11:23:0 TheBlackKnight 54 52 “Perhaps someone should be asking the players and agents (that signed those lucrative contracts) where they stand legally if, as it has been mooted, they may be used as leverage against the HMRC?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1201 18144 1 22/10/2011 11:33:0 TheBlackKnight 54 53 “Paulie,
What if HMRC decision is not reached but Rangers go into admin? What then? It would be foolhardy for them to persue the debt (at that stage) Why not sit it out?
The other question should be, is it the Whyte Knights intention to run the club in administration and how long can he hide under the cover of the floating charge in admin (taking the SFA rules into account)?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1203 18146 3 22/10/2011 11:41:0 TheBlackKnight 54 54 “MDCCCLXXXVIII
Great moniker ! 🙂 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1204 18147 4 22/10/2011 11:49:0 TheBlackKnight 54 55 “Paulie, Paranoid,Blindlemonchitlin,
What does it benefit the Whyte Knight other than pandering to the lowest common denominator? (to save his skin? – literally?)
This will not favour or induce investment! In fact, IMHO, it is quite the reverse. If I were Hay McKerron I would be distancing myself from the whole events. As PR managers that was an unmitigated disaster!
The iceberg is coming!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1215 18158 15 22/10/2011 12:18:0 TheBlackKnight 54 56 “Jonnybhoy,
I was hoping EJ/Hugh/Auldheid (amongst others, who appear to have good knowledge of this) may point us in the right direction.
The Whyte Knight has now confirmed they may not appeal (but they will win! sounds like they may lose?) it is in their advantage not to appeal. To draw a line in the sand and hope HMRC try to recoup the monies.
What would be interesting is a reasonable offer of time to pay. Say the bill is £35M (a reasonable estimate)
5 years at £7m a year plus interest sounds manageable. However, add this to their existing burdens and commitments and that is a large amount of revenue The Whyte Knight has to find in these difficult times.
Refer to the interview yesterday (in conjunction with the above).
‘We’ve certainly reviewed how we handled things in the transfer window, ….I think we’ll perform much better in how we handle it overall in future transfer windows.’
‘Costs have to be cut going forward. There’s no doubt we have got some tough decisions to make. We’ve got a business plan going forward which does involve significant cost savings.’
I believe it is the first clear indication the players he intends to sell in January.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1219 18162 19 22/10/2011 12:21:0 TheBlackKnight 54 57 “paranoidtimdroid says:
22/10/2011 at 12:06 pm
‘He’s setting them up to fund a new club through a supporters trust.’
Hope so. Relegation would follow follow very soon after! It is nit a viable business model for RFC and what they have been used to (albeit with tax payers money)”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1223 18166 23 22/10/2011 12:38:0 TheBlackKnight 54 58 “‘We are a business that is losing money, a business that needs to bring costs down. If money is needed then we’ll have to look to shareholders and borrowings but there is a plan in place to deal with it. There is a plan for the rest of the season.’
Losing money? (Tic)
Need to bring costs down? (Tic)
Need to look to shareholders? (Tic)
NEED TO LOOK AT BORROWINGS!!!!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1225 18168 25 22/10/2011 12:44:0 TheBlackKnight 54 59 “paranoidtimdroid says:
22/10/2011 at 12:36 pm
‘I think they could easily find 50000 Rangers minded people willing to pay a tenner a month.’
No offence but, I am stunned DM didn’t think of that! How much do you think the operating cost and liabilities make up? Rangers have made massive losses over the past few years even with champions league money. (and the tax mans)”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1227 18170 27 22/10/2011 12:47:0 TheBlackKnight 54 60 “Gwared says:
22/10/2011 at 12:41 pm
And I’m suing you for not suing me! 🙂 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1230 18173 30 22/10/2011 12:59:0 TheBlackKnight 54 61 “paranoidtimdroid,
How do they intend to finance salaries? Running costs? Stadia maintenance and repair?
Less wages = less quality (albeit from some of these overpaid nancies you would believe different)
Less quality = less attractive
Less attractive = less investment
Less investment = less supporters
Less supporters = less investment
And so on and so on!
You are perhaps too young (or have forgotten) to remember crowds of 9000 at Rangers and Aberdeen and Dundee Utd were the teams to beat.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1233 18176 33 22/10/2011 13:13:0 TheBlackKnight 54 62 “paranoidtimdroid says:
22/10/2011 at 12:36 pm
‘I think they could easily find 50000 Rangers minded people willing to pay a tenner a month. That’s £500k a month. £6m a year.’
Apologies in advance as I dont mean to ridicule, but why not just make their existing season ticket the most expensive in the country! Say £1200 per year. Yes, I’m sure there are 50,000 charitable Rangers supporters out there.
Perhaps they could look to charitable donations? Maybe have a fund raiser or tombola? All of these are already in the Whyte Knights business plan.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1241 18184 41 22/10/2011 13:41:0 TheBlackKnight 54 63 “Johnobhoyo says:
22/10/2011 at 1:36 pm
‘Worrying’ ?
I suppose that depends on ‘Malcom'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 25 1245 18188 45 22/10/2011 13:53:0 TheBlackKnight 54 64 “OnandOnandOnand says:
22/10/2011 at 1:13 pm
RTC,
I won’t repeat comment on the most recent posting on Paul McConville’s website as it looks like subtle disinformation. Any thoughts?
‘GONE FISHING’ 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 26 1252 18195 2 22/10/2011 14:5:0 TheBlackKnight 54 65 “Johnobhoyo says:
22/10/2011 at 1:53 pm
Care to substantiate ?
Just because the guy claims he know’s Malcom Gammie QC (personal association) and that he previously claimed ‘Malcom’ was dealing with the case and that ‘Malcolm’ has the view HMRC have lost the case, he now purports ‘Malcolm’ is annoyed that this blundering has set back all of ‘Malcolm'(s) new cases against the English Clubs and that he confused that his dealings with the rangers tax case were simply to read over the papers.
Perhaps someone could ask ‘Malcolm’?
But I believe he is away on a fishing trip 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 26 1263 18206 13 22/10/2011 14:34:0 TheBlackKnight 54 66 “Johnobhoyo says:
22/10/2011 at 2:12 pm
‘Perhaps Paul McConville could offer an opinion on whether this guy is legit? ‘
How would Paul know?
What is there to be gained from you trying to get this information?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 26 1268 18211 18 22/10/2011 14:43:0 TheBlackKnight 54 67 “Quote for today ‘BORROWINGS’ 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 26 1276 18219 26 22/10/2011 15:22:0 TheBlackKnight 54 68 “Johnobhoyo says:
22/10/2011 at 3:03 pm
Out of curiosity.
Why not ask why I AM NOT ‘MALCOM'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 26 1279 18222 29 22/10/2011 15:36:0 TheBlackKnight 54 69 “I am not ‘Malcom’ 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 26 1286 18229 36 22/10/2011 15:53:0 TheBlackKnight 54 70 “Still no interest in the ‘borrowings’. I do wonder what the Whyte Knight is referring to?
A debt free Rangers? Outside of the monies allegedly paid to Lloyds. So what ‘borrowings’?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 27 1304 18247 4 22/10/2011 16:36:0 TheBlackKnight 54 71 “Oops! I hope they are going down the six year rule. Criminality awaits for those who dare to tread. 🙂
Unless they mean VAT?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 27 1309 18252 9 22/10/2011 16:45:0 TheBlackKnight 54 72 “For those interested, look up section 32(1)(b) of the 1980 Act for an interesting start.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 27 1312 18255 12 22/10/2011 16:51:0 TheBlackKnight 54 73 “I wonder if the Whyte Knight (or the club) ‘Aknowledged’ the debt in writing?
That would be really embarrassing! I wonder if such a document exists?
Hmmmm”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 27 1336 18279 36 22/10/2011 18:39:0 TheBlackKnight 54 74 “Here is an interesting point I am sure The Whyte Knights advisors, the legal beagles on this site, ‘Malcom’, Mr Thornhill and Louie must have considered in regard to the 6 year rule:
37 (2) (a) Limitation Act 1980
Application to the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall.
(1)Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, and without prejudice to section 39, this Act shall apply to proceedings by or against the Crown in like manner as it applies to proceedings between subjects.
(2)Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, this Act shall not apply to’
(a)any proceedings by the Crown for the recovery of any tax or duty or interest on any tax or duty;”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 27 1348 18291 48 22/10/2011 20:23:0 TheBlackKnight 54 75 “Johnboy says:
22/10/2011 at 4:31 pm
From the Record, it seems Whyte is now appealing the Small Bill, the one he had already pledged to pay. Seems this is where the Louie/Johnobhoyo/Sam/Glasnost stuff about the six-year rule is coming from:
‘I said it would all be dealt with but my advisors subsequently looked at it and found HMRC should not have issued that assessment because it was more than six year old. We are disputing it.'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 28 1351 18294 1 22/10/2011 20:39:0 TheBlackKnight 54 76 “Johnobhoyo,
I think you are misleading and misrepresenting. To what end I am unsure.
You, specifically, referred to comments on another site where a poster (Louie) claims they have inside knowledge and personal contact with a Tribunal Judge, Malcolm Gammie. ( http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/did-craig-whyte-and-rangers-mislead-the-court-of-session/ )
The (im)poster states (having previously implied Malcolm Gammie was sitting on the FTT);
‘He (Malcolm) was asked to scan the developments in Edinburgh and give opinion on the arguments presented, he was not overly impressed by the naked naivety of some of the HMRC positions. He picked up on the six year rule immediately a very grey area that no self respecting Silk should or would stray into, Whytes people are using it in their presentation and defences.’
He then goes on to state;
‘All in all I am told he (Malcolm Gammie) thinks Andrew (Thornhill) has driven a coach and horses through HMRC submissions, he is annoyed because he wanted a clear run at the matters involving English clubs, he will be HMRC lead in any proceedings, however he feels Edinburgh matters could put this event some way off.’
The two statements are contrary!
‘Whytes people are using it (the six year rule) in their presentation and defences'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 28 1362 18305 12 22/10/2011 21:26:0 TheBlackKnight 54 77 “Rab, perhaps Louie should explain that one!
For a leading QC, and Tribunal Judge (albeit now no longer apparently involved in the case according to Louie) to ‘leak’ matters of a private hearing will be viewed very seriously. Big claims from Louie. It appears, to me, some muck raking on top of water is at hand!
Hence ‘Malcolm in the Muddle'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 28 1365 18308 15 22/10/2011 21:49:0 TheBlackKnight 54 78 “‘This is just another chapter in that book.’
Can’t wait 🙂 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 28 1376 18319 26 22/10/2011 22:18:0 TheBlackKnight 54 79 “Paul, appreciate you are catching up and much has happened in the interim days, but;
louie says:
October 19, 2011 at 6:55 pm
‘Just as a matter of interest Paul, heard about an hour ago that Malcolm Gammie is less than enamoured by HMRC and their strategy, could be idle tittle-tattle but M’lud is above that sort of thing in my experience. Little surprise that London has got involved, thank the Saints that Rugby is less tainted by intrigue.'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 28 1386 18329 36 22/10/2011 22:42:0 TheBlackKnight 54 80 “Gerard Gisbey says:
22/10/2011 at 10:34 pm
‘why would cw except the small tax bill then dispute this ???’
As has already been aluded to;
Why would the RFC board have made provision for it in their AA?
Why is it now disputed when extensive due diligence was carried out by Collyer Bristow/ Saffery?
Why was the ‘wee bill’ accepted in the ‘circular’ from the Whyte Knight?
‘the big boy dun it and ran away’!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 28 1397 18340 47 22/10/2011 23:3:0 TheBlackKnight 54 81 “Gerard Gisbey says:
22/10/2011 at 10:53 pm
‘blackknight , if he has accepted the small tax bill can he go back on this and would he really stand a chance in court after this ?’
Unlike the ‘acclaimed’ Louie, I am not privvy to detailed information relating to the case. I would say however it seems incredulous that given what is on the public realm (including his own statements of record) The Whyte Knight did not accept this.
Perhaps the theory of increasing costs deliberately, holds water!
On a side note, I ‘doth my helmet’ to you Paul.”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 29 1405 18348 5 22/10/2011 23:18:0 TheBlackKnight 54 82 “Johnboy says:
22/10/2011 at 11:04 pm
‘Just to say that Louie’s posting style on Paul’s blog is very reminiscent of some of the ‘Pump and Dump’ stuff seen on shares websites promoting the likes of Whyte’s MHG.’
Have to disagree. Amongst other startling comments about MHG, the ‘pump and dump’ refers to the unsavoury practice that traders of MHG stock appear to be involved in as it appears to be in freefall.
AE states :
‘I am feeling sorry for holders here. Surely without any shadow of a doubt the worst fears are real? I defy anyone to suggest there is not something grossly amiss with MHG.
Its not punting, its not gambling, putting cash into MHG is pure and utter madness.’
Agree with the rest of your post though! 😉 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 29 1406 18349 6 22/10/2011 23:22:0 TheBlackKnight 54 83 “Paul McConville says:
22/10/2011 at 11:14 pm
‘ Must be the ‘charge by the word’ training kicking in.’
(shocked face) not six minute increments ! What do I owe ?
😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 29 1408 18351 8 22/10/2011 23:27:0 TheBlackKnight 54 84 “Paul McConville says:
22/10/2011 at 11:24 pm
TheBlackKnight says:
22/10/2011 at 11:22 pm
””””””””’-
I have seen the light ‘ to you, no charge!
Phew! More power to your elbow (I believe the saying goes) 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 29 1417 18360 17 23/10/2011 0:6:0 TheBlackKnight 54 85 “paranoidtimdroid says:
22/10/2011 at 11:54 pm
Forgive my ignorance, but I still do not understand the business model.
Are you suggesting the existing season ticket holders/ non season ticket holders invest (more) cash (what they can spare) or are you suggesting a share issue?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 29 1425 18368 25 23/10/2011 0:35:0 TheBlackKnight 54 86 “paranoidtimdroid says:
23/10/2011 at 12:27 am
Murray (RFC) tried the share issue twice before and failed? Third time lucky I suppose?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 29 1431 18374 31 23/10/2011 0:44:0 TheBlackKnight 54 87 “paranoidtimdroid says:
23/10/2011 at 12:34 am
‘with the long term aim being to buy back Ibrox from whoever buys it in a few months time.’
Are you serious? Your business model is bad enough, but seriously!”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 29 1436 18380 36 23/10/2011 0:59:0 TheBlackKnight 54 88 “Ok I give in. For starters,
1. How does a ‘group’ purchase the controlling interest?
2. Where does the ‘group’ raise the capital to make such a purchase?
3. Dependent on outcome of ‘purchase’ what guarantees are there to suggest the revenue streams are and will still be available at the same level?
4 as it is a ‘Completely different scenario now. The mindset of Rangers fans then was ‘It’s fine, Murray has infinite cash and will open his wallet as always’. Why hasn’t the ‘billionaire’ put up?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 29 1441 18385 41 23/10/2011 1:29:0 TheBlackKnight 54 89 “paranoidtimdroid says:
‘I’m basing it on the club as it is disappearing. This would be a new start up.’
A NewCo? No history then? Lots of ifs, buts and maybes too in your business plan. Are you The Whyte Knight?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1457 18402 7 23/10/2011 14:25:0 TheBlackKnight 54 90 “rangerstaxcase says:
23/10/2011 at 5:36 am
I posted this on Paul McConville’ site http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/did-craig-whyte-and-rangers-mislead-the-court-of-session/
In relation to the rumours variously and stated ‘ ‘ comments from The Whyte Knight, I believe Counsel and Lord Hodge should look at the comments made in Lord Hodges judgment
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH158.html
‘Mr Whyte’s affidavit suggests that HMRC have been able to arrest £2.3 million in Rangers’ bank account. Discussions are continuing between HMRC and Rangers in relation to the level of penalties imposed. In any event, the purchaser of Rangers has undertaken to pay the debt to HMRC. ‘
An affidavit to a Lord of the High Court of Session (assumed as signed by CW) that confirms his intention (undertaking) to pay the debt.
Is this perhaps another lie?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1459 18404 9 23/10/2011 15:1:0 TheBlackKnight 54 91 “Paul McConville says:
23/10/2011 at 2:58 pm
Many thanks Paul, I too agree that it appears that way and I too am not suggesting that is the case 😉
It makes an interesting set of circumstances that could unfurl for The Whyte Knight 🙂 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1463 18409 13 23/10/2011 15:39:0 TheBlackKnight 54 92 “Not sure you understand the legal system Ashton, why would Her Majestey’s finest be involved?
Nothing has been suggested? It merely points to inconsistencies in The Whyte Knights often contrary statements.
It will be part of any Counsel up against Rangers in Court to look into this contrary information, then for the Court to decide on the action.
I wonder if The Whyte Knight still has his pad in Monaco? He may be paying it a visit soon 😉 ”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1464 18410 14 23/10/2011 15:45:0 TheBlackKnight 54 93 “‘Majesty’s'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1466 18412 16 23/10/2011 15:56:0 TheBlackKnight 54 94 “That is a matter for the Court!
It appears a matter of record that his statements in the DR re: the 6 year rule and the affidavit are contrary.”
The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1467 18413 17 23/10/2011 15:59:0 TheBlackKnight 54 95 “If not disparate and ill-advised”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1476 18422 26 23/10/2011 17:31:0 TheBlackKnight 54 96 “Paulie & RTC.
Noting the second option as you state, the most likely, why would he go into admin on the wee bill.
The big bill (should they lose) would sink them for sure?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1478 18424 28 23/10/2011 17:37:0 TheBlackKnight 54 97 “Ashton, is it a false oath?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1479 18425 29 23/10/2011 17:49:0 TheBlackKnight 54 98 “Hugh, the amount is an assessment, it has been appealed and yet to be determined, yes?
Are you suggesting HMRC can ask for the full amount? Are they in a position to sit it out and appeal any decision (let’s say to get a more favourable decision)?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1481 18427 31 23/10/2011 18:1:0 TheBlackKnight 54 99 “Cheers Campsiejoe, I understand that.
I’ll reword. Why oh why oh why would HMRC put themselves in a position, going after a bill of £49M knowing the money may not be there and come away with very little.
Surely it would be better to play the Whyte Knight at his own game. Wait for the tribunal decision (even if favourable, but on the assumption it’s not the full amount) appeal it and sit it out until funds (either by forced sale of assets or transfer window player sales) are available.
I’m sure any share issue mooted would be quickly kicked into touch and the business would be nicely set up to die a prolonged death whilst repaying it’s dues?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1488 18434 38 23/10/2011 18:34:0 TheBlackKnight 54 100 “So in a fanciful scenario where individuals conspire to buy a troubled company at a reduced value in return for paying off the bank debt, a network of companies are set up to inflate debts in the hope this blocks any route of a CVA in the attempt to release it’s burdens to creditors, the future (season ticket) sales could be sold off to the highest bidder and the business premises (ground) passed onto a ‘landlord’ for a lease agreement over an extended time period (100years)
Did I miss anything in this wonderful plan?
Paulie, thanks for the reply.
‘Whilst I see the logic of your argument it is not within the power of HMRC to keep Rangers out of insolvency just by staying their own hand.’
Agree, but is there not statute that relates to ongoing appeals/court cases where a business falls into receivership (perhaps deliberately) during the process?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1493 18439 43 23/10/2011 20:8:0 TheBlackKnight 54 101 “If administration does go ahead (as planned), it certainly will be interesting to see the possible fall out and future implications;
‘The liquidator, administrative receiver, administrator or Official Receiver has a duty to send the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills, a report on the conduct of all directors who were in office in the last 3 years of the company’s trading. The Secretary of State has to decide whether it is in the public interest to seek a disqualification order against a director.
Examples of the most commonly reported conduct are:
continuing the company’s trading when the company was insolvent;
failing to keep proper accounting records;
failing to prepare and file accounts or make returns to Companies House; and
failing to send in returns or pay to the Crown any tax that is due.'”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1497 18443 47 23/10/2011 20:28:0 TheBlackKnight 54 102 “OnandOn, I couldn’t possibly say 😉 ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 30 1500 18446 50 23/10/2011 20:46:0 TheBlackKnight 54 103 “As far as I can see the footballers creditors rule only applies in England and Wales as they (the clubs) are bound by the Football Association Rules.
If a club enters administration (in England and Wales) they are bound by the football creditors rule where preferential creditors, including players and managers, are paid in full before the remaining assets are divided among the unsecured creditors.
In the spirit of droids post, I’m not sure if this helps 😉
http://bankruptcyandinsolvency.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-is-football-creditor-rule.html?m=1”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1515 18461 15 23/10/2011 22:2:0 TheBlackKnight 54 104 “You could also look at
http://whois.domaintools.com/angelbourse.co.uk
angelbourse.co.uk, owned by HTX Holdings at the same address and appear to be a company registration Ofex/ Aim listing type.
GUESS WHO?
http://website.informer.com/htx holdings s.a. HTX Holdings S.A..html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/sme/small-companies-notebook-lowcost-angel-bourse-swoops-on-ofex-territory-544092.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/2358127.stm
And lastly……………
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/tixway-uk
Note the address, directors and the recent posting of NOTICE OF STRIKING OFF DISCONTINUED……. worth buying a copy?”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1526 18474 26 23/10/2011 22:35:0 TheBlackKnight 54 105 “RTC
TheBlackKnight says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
23/10/2011 at 10:02 pm
Think it may be the multiple websites in relation to CW/ Tixway/ HTX holdings etc
Also
Look at cash in bank SINCE April 2011 and the lodging of the DISS40 date?
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/tixway-uk”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1531 18493 31 23/10/2011 22:53:0 TheBlackKnight 54 106 “Brilliant EJ !!
OnandOn see EJ”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1533 18496 33 23/10/2011 22:58:0 TheBlackKnight 54 107 “Sorry OnandOn got carried away…. Capital”

The Wee Tax Bill: a scam explored 31 1545 18520 45 23/10/2011 23:31:0 TheBlackKnight 54 108 “Is PMcB not re-writing the rules 😉 ”

Disinformation and Deceit 1 10 18484 10 23/10/2011 22:42:0 TheBlackKnight 9 1 “Brilliant! 🙂 ”

Disinformation and Deceit 1 30 18522 30 23/10/2011 23:38:0 TheBlackKnight 9 2 “‘ ‘Deliberate misstatement’ is so much at the core of this case, it could be the title of a film about the case. Not only did Rangers FC repeatedly misstate the facts (to fans, ordinary shareholders, and HMRC alike), they got caught in a very provable way. (The patient will be rewarded with a full explanation in time). ‘
Patience is certainly not one of my virtues 🙂
Is it the Company Accounts?”

Disinformation and Deceit 1 36 18530 36 23/10/2011 23:59:0 TheBlackKnight 9 3 “Chalmers says:
23/10/2011 at 11:44 pm
That would be easily provable 🙂
As would Company Accounts, statement to the SE, documents lodged at CH?
But forensic analysis of RTCs comment could lead me to looking into missinformation or ‘deliberate missstatements’ at the ‘core of this case’ (tax case) and ‘repeatedly misstate the facts (to fans, ordinary shareholders, and HMRC alike)’ and ‘they got caught’.
It’s the ‘they got caught’ I find the most intriguing!
Apologies in advance RTC”

Disinformation and Deceit 5 217 18729 17 24/10/2011 18:43:0 TheBlackKnight 9 4 “Mark Dickson says:
24/10/2011 at 1:06 pm
Mark, substitute ‘Rangers’ for Hearts (or any other team for that matter with a substantial support)
I’m sure EJ would support such a proposition.”

Disinformation and Deceit 6 292 18808 42 24/10/2011 22:57:0 TheBlackKnight 9 5 “JMaclure says:
24/10/2011 at 10:47 pm
Do you feel better getting that off your chest?
Was the programme not in the interest of the general public? Were the allegations (based on key witnesses and information passed to the BBC) not put forward?
I do not recall the BBC stating their position in regard to the allegations! I do not recall the BBC making wild accusations! I do not recall any defamations against the Whyte Knight!
Paxman on the otherhand!”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 2 88 18938 38 25/10/2011 11:52:0 TheBlackKnight 55 1 “I believe Rangers will have much more to worry about than a ‘wee tax bill’.
http://www.celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=787:did-the-sfa-deny-celtic-a-place-in-the-champions-league&catid=47:season-2011-2012&Itemid=83”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 5 239 19093 39 25/10/2011 19:36:0 TheBlackKnight 55 2 “A bad day for the laptop loyal says:
25/10/2011 at 6:34 pm
‘I am sure there will be a few nervous dispositions being displayed by a few SFA members tonight….’
I forsee resignations and suspensions happening in due course. The SFA (and) or Rangers are guilty of collusion and deception. Which and by whom will no doubt be determined soon.
This could be the icing on the tax cake! 🙂 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 5 243 19097 43 25/10/2011 19:40:0 TheBlackKnight 55 3 “Private Land says:
25/10/2011 at 6:03 pm
I have been banging on about Saffery Champness for weeks! This may be one of the missing pieces in the very deliberate and calculated puzzle!
Saffery were involved in the ‘non-legal’ due diligence (in particular the tax issues)”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 5 248 19102 48 25/10/2011 19:42:0 TheBlackKnight 55 4 “‘Our work identified a number of previously unknown areas of risk for Craig Whyte, and as a result these issues were able to be dealt with prior to completion or as part of the deal terms'”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 261 19115 11 25/10/2011 20:2:0 TheBlackKnight 55 5 “Mark Dickson says:
25/10/2011 at 5:17 pm
Perhaps you may reconsider taking cognisance of the posts on here last night/ CQN and PMacG blogg today.
I fear ‘someone’ may be in real trouble. Which could lead to a significant European ban for a team who may or may not be in the SPL.
Moreover, ‘someone’ may be forced to decide on embarrassment factor of being banned from Europe, or not being in a position to be in Europe.”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 262 19116 12 25/10/2011 20:9:0 TheBlackKnight 55 6 “Thomas says:
25/10/2011 at 7:45 pm
‘What do you mean by ‘non legal’? As in ‘under the radar’?’
Apologies, ‘Non legal’ meaning any matters not relating to the legal framework of the contrac/ takeovert. That was dealt with by CollyerBristow. Saffery were employed to identify potential risks or eventualities and possible outcomes (much we assume have been covered in this blog) as part of the due diligence. The tax bill, administration/ and or liquidation, SFA rules, etc etc would all, I am sure, have been looked at in detail.
What may not have been factored is the possible deception and the failures in Europe by the team.”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 268 19122 18 25/10/2011 20:23:0 TheBlackKnight 55 7 “macon rouge says:
25/10/2011 at 8:11 pm
I believe the point was discussed at length before. I believe you are correct.(sorry Hugh)
One point that did require further clarification was if the debt/lien was transferred for ‘a payment’ is it that ‘payment’ that is set against the floating charge by the chargeholder or is it the original charge (if you follow) The debt owed to Lloyds, or what The Whyte Knight paid for it??”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 270 19124 20 25/10/2011 20:26:0 TheBlackKnight 55 8 “paulmac says:
25/10/2011 at 8:21 pm
‘Another statement from Darryl tonight that was revealing..
He said…that the players were working with 2 contracts?.’
That couldn’t be:
1. Pay? &
2. Conditions?”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 279 19134 29 25/10/2011 20:40:0 TheBlackKnight 55 9 “A bad day for the laptop loyal says:
25/10/2011 at 8:26 pm
succinctly put! I salute you!
Perhaps you may have considered changing your moniker to;
A bad couple of days for the laptop loyal
A bad few days for the laptop loyal
A bad week for the laptop loyal
A bad couple of weeks for the laptop loyal
A bad few weeks for the laptop loyal
A bad month for the laptop loyal
A bad couple of months for the laptop loyal
A bad few months for the laptop loyal
A bad year for the laptop loyal
A bad couple of years for the laptop loyal
A bad few years for the laptop loyal
A bad decade for the laptop loyal
A bad couple of decades for the laptop loyal
A bad few decades for the laptop loyal
A bad day for the laptop who?
But myself and Gerard Moran have already lodged them 🙂 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 284 19139 34 25/10/2011 20:45:0 TheBlackKnight 55 10 “duggie73 says:
25/10/2011 at 8:28 pm
Brilliant! LOL 🙂 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 293 19149 43 25/10/2011 21:3:0 TheBlackKnight 55 11 “I have just recieved an interesting rumour!
Someone at a very well known and established accountancy firm were asked to represent The Whyte Knight as administrator last week and declined due to possible adverse reaction.. It is now believed an English company will take on the role………. Has anyone else heard such a rumour?”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 6 298 19155 48 25/10/2011 21:16:0 TheBlackKnight 55 12 “ramsay smith says:
25/10/2011 at 9:10 pm
Agree, perhaps just a rumour as I said or something of more substance.
Perhaps they had second thoughts? Perhaps he is looking for someone ‘unrelated’. He does like to play below radar.
Imagine The Whyte Knight employing someone he held a previous ‘working’ relationship with. That would point to a predetermined route/agenda would it not?”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 7 303 19160 3 25/10/2011 21:25:0 TheBlackKnight 55 13 “Has anyone ordered the wreath for Friday?
I recall a similar ‘unfunny’ arrival at Celtic Park photo shoot after news broke of the broken crest!”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 7 304 19161 4 25/10/2011 21:27:0 TheBlackKnight 55 14 “Davythelotion says:
25/10/2011 at 9:17 pm
‘Most concerning of all, tax evasion, cheating and deception are the BBC’s fault.’
Well, they are paying the tax bill according to The Whyte Knight 🙂 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 7 306 19163 6 25/10/2011 21:30:0 TheBlackKnight 55 15 “Lord Wobbly says:
25/10/2011 at 9:24 pm
Weather permitting of course. 😉 cold day in hell springs to mind!”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 7 322 19181 22 25/10/2011 22:8:0 TheBlackKnight 55 16 “easyJambo says:
25/10/2011 at 9:02 pm
Bang on EJ.
1(b) ‘£5M in playing squad’
1(d) ‘provide or procure up to £5M in working capital’
1(e) ‘CONTRIBUTE to meet the liability…….discounted option tax scheme’
1(f) ‘£1.7M capital expenditure……..’ (improvements)
Cumulatively:
£1 (whatever the debt actually was to Lloyds) let’s say £18M
1(b) assuming this cannot include the long term contracts apx £500k
1(d) UP TO £5M, let’s say £5M
1(e) CONTRIBUTE, let’s be generous and say he CONTRIBUTES £2.8M
1(f) let’s also be mindful of the apparent selling off of the catering, but still allow £1.7M
That makes a grand total of (potentially)……….
£29,000,001.00
DK may have got one thing right! Perhaps if you exclude the £5M additional working capital and The Whyte Knight is not a liar 😉 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 7 331 19190 31 25/10/2011 22:19:0 TheBlackKnight 55 17 “Private Land says:
25/10/2011 at 9:45 pm
rangerstaxcase says:
25/10/2011 at 9:47 pm
I recall in the remnants of this blog (or my mind) a discussion involving Rangers existing ‘agreement’ with Lloyds. This did not refer to their possible owing’s (circa £18M) but perhaps their ‘line of credit’ (overdraft)
That was up at the end of October/November 2011 and I believe had to be renegotiated?”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 7 342 19201 42 25/10/2011 22:29:0 TheBlackKnight 55 18 “CMC says:
25/10/2011 at 10:22 pm
‘The question I feel that needs an answer, is where did Whyte get the £18M of funding from?
And does he have the abilty to borrow more from such sources??’
Ironically, perhaps, The Whyte Knight (with his below radar companies) has an existing line of credit with………. guess who????
LLOYDS!”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 7 346 19205 46 25/10/2011 22:33:0 TheBlackKnight 55 19 “Lord Wobbly says:
25/10/2011 at 10:25 pm
I believe you are correct, have 10 points!!! 😉 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 351 19210 1 25/10/2011 22:43:0 TheBlackKnight 55 20 “ramsay smith says:
25/10/2011 at 10:05 pm
Lord Wobbly says:
25/10/2011 at 10.13pm
Private Land says:
25/10/2011 at 10.14pm
Private Land says:
25/10/2011 at 10:15 pm
Private Land says:
25/10/2011 at 10:16 pm
Leeds!
Now that would be ironic (assuming you know the financial history of Leeds and a certain game against Rangers in the old days where the derogatory tag of ‘marauding hvns’ was first posed in the press) 😉 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 357 19216 7 25/10/2011 22:52:0 TheBlackKnight 55 21 “Total coincidence. Just like The Whyte Knights co founder/director…,,,,,
‘Liam Murray has picked up during 15 years of working for such giants of the financial world as Price Waterhouse in Ireland, and among the Gnomes of Zurich in Switzerland, before becoming one of the founders of Cairns.'”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 361 19220 11 25/10/2011 22:59:0 TheBlackKnight 55 22 “droid says:
25/10/2011 at 10:51 pm
‘The drowning man is not troubled by rain. -Persian Proverb’
‘if ma enemy is drownin, fling him a medicine baw, no a lifeline’
Scottish Proverb 😉 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 369 19229 19 25/10/2011 23:9:0 TheBlackKnight 55 23 “MD,
A thread that must be pulled however!
The SFA would indeed be in a difficult position. Unless they were misled or ‘misstatements’ were now (or soon to be) apparent 😉
It seems unlikely the whole of Scottish Football would suffer for anothers ills.
Hearts and Falkirk were in discussion with HMRC and the liability was apparent, I believe.”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 373 19233 23 25/10/2011 23:22:0 TheBlackKnight 55 24 “CMC says:
25/10/2011 at 11:17 pm
‘However, isn’t that contradictory to what RTC is saying in his headline piece??
He alludes to the fact that ‘ Rangers do not have a credit facility with any bank.’
I never said Rangers did. The Whyte Knight does however with his below radar companies.”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 379 19239 29 25/10/2011 23:33:0 TheBlackKnight 55 25 “v says:
25/10/2011 at 11:31 pm
‘LW, if It was AA I’d be as well keeping the money and cut out the middleman ‘
Are you Craig Whyte? 🙂 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 387 19247 37 25/10/2011 23:48:0 TheBlackKnight 55 26 “sannabhoy says:
25/10/2011 at 11:42 pm
Could also just be a guy buying a company name in the hope someone may need it soon.
Remember when Berners-Lee’s ‘www’ was launched. IBM/ Apple domains etc were all bought by forward thinking individuals!”
Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 388 19248 38 25/10/2011 23:51:0 TheBlackKnight 55 27 “Lord Wobbly says:
25/10/2011 at 11:44 pm
Strong with milk and no sugar, for me. And mind wash your hands! 😉 ”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 393 19253 43 25/10/2011 23:57:0 TheBlackKnight 55 28 “v says:
25/10/2011 at 11:40 pm
yes, that poor
😉
But rich in spirit!”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 8 395 19255 45 25/10/2011 23:58:0 TheBlackKnight 55 29 “And so to bed!”

Rangers Insolvency: Is it inevitable? 9 401 19262 1 26/10/2011 0:20:0 TheBlackKnight 55 30 “Lord Wobbly says:
26/10/2011 at 12:00 am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘Milk? I think you need to speak to Mark.’
Thought he had the spoon ?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 7 330 19649 30 26/10/2011 23:47:0 TheBlackKnight 80 1 “Reilly1926 says:
26/10/2011 at 11:21 pm
‘I’ve got a feeling that RTC has regrets about posting that cash flow spreadsheet. More questions than answers have been generated.’
If only the Accountant were here 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 12 557 19894 7 27/10/2011 22:6:0 TheBlackKnight 80 2 “Adam, do you have a cat called SchrÃ¶dinger? 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 12 565 19902 15 27/10/2011 22:35:0 TheBlackKnight 80 3 “In the defence of Adam, (aside from his balanced and admirable undying devotion to a differing perspective about a club he clearly holds dear) may I use the analogy of Erwin SchrÃ¶dinger’ theoretics.
Not until the FTT returns a judgement, and both ‘observers’ have the same information about what happened, do both system states appear to ‘collapse’ into the same definite result, a club that is either alive or dead.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 12 572 19909 22 27/10/2011 22:45:0 TheBlackKnight 80 4 “Private Land says:
27/10/2011 at 10:36 pm
‘For information, and to avoid suspicion of whataboutery, I am certain that Celtic’s reluctance to eschew the use of EBTs had no basis in morality, but in a fear of getting caught.’
You are entitled to your opinion, but have to disagree.
It was Brian Quinn CBE (and ex Deputy Governor of the BoE) that guided Celtic down the correct route for what I believe to be based on both moral and legal reasons.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 12 583 19920 33 27/10/2011 23:7:0 TheBlackKnight 80 5 “Adam says:
27/10/2011 at 10:51 pm
‘Celtic used EBT for at least a year. Im not sure if this was pre or post Brian Quinn though.’
It would have been on his watch if we are to believe it was the Brazilian player Juninho (confirmation required here) as mooted before. The scheme was abandoned on advice from BQ.
PL, I have to disagree (again). Had the ‘terms’ been known to him, I am sure Celtic would not have signed him (Junihno). Much like the Arshavin scenario, but in reverse.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 12 589 19926 39 27/10/2011 23:14:0 TheBlackKnight 80 6 “@Pmacgiollabhain ‘heard from reliable source,CW,accountants,and lawyers in meeting at ibrox’
I wonder if this is this the first board meeting? LOL 🙂 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 12 597 19935 47 27/10/2011 23:25:0 TheBlackKnight 80 7 “Lord Wobbly says:
27/10/2011 at 11:19 pm
Is Phil invited to the board meeting? I thought he would have to wear Brown Brogues not DM’s 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 12 600 19938 50 27/10/2011 23:28:0 TheBlackKnight 80 8 “Lol Rab 🙂
I wonder if the ‘lowly maintenance man’ fixed the big screen/ plumbing/ staircase 🙂 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 13 616 19955 16 27/10/2011 23:45:0 TheBlackKnight 80 9 “Slimshady says:
27/10/2011 at 11:35 pm
Makes you wonder how Grant Thornton are feeling at the minute?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 13 620 19959 20 27/10/2011 23:52:0 TheBlackKnight 80 10 “The Mighty Quinn says:
27/10/2011 at 11:45 pm
‘The identification of cheating is a subjective process.
And anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.’
Do you work for:
a) Government?
b) The SFA?
c) The Accountant? 🙂 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 13 626 19965 26 28/10/2011 0:6:0 TheBlackKnight 80 11 “guinnessjohn says:
28/10/2011 at 12:00 am
‘Guys , what is going on here ? The thread has been hijacked by a single issue character who has certainly earned his (s)corn today but remains what he is , a deliberately positioned distraction.’
Is it Mark’s wood? 🙂 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 15 717 20059 17 28/10/2011 12:13:0 TheBlackKnight 80 12 “Any thoughts on this ?
‘Steve’ posted this on Paul McConville’ site Random Thoughts…..
Article 12.2 (Page 12)

Click to access 1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

It appears that any ‘newco’ scenario would forfeit entry into European competition for 3years.
Regardless of Rangers current situation, could they survive with NO european competition money for 3 years? We have already seen the ‘manageable’ losses Celtic have incurred. With the big tax case looming and possible ‘worse case scenario’ financial outcome, could they exist in their present form regardless?
Rock and a hard place springs to mind!
Apologies if already covered.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 15 722 20064 22 28/10/2011 12:29:0 TheBlackKnight 80 13 “weeminger,
Perhaps the Whyte Knights comments in regard to a ‘black hole’ in funds and ‘investigating other avenues’ for Rangers to compete are heavily weighted in his decision making because of this.
Regardless of the outcomes, if Rangers form a ‘NewCo’ they will be automatically excluded from European Competition for 3 years.
Gives the players a real incentive doesn’t it. Especially those on extended contracts.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 16 751 20094 1 28/10/2011 13:26:0 TheBlackKnight 80 14 “Hugh McEwan says:
28/10/2011 at 12:43 pm
‘Do you really think many of the established players would stay.
Reduced contract or move as a free agent.
Which would you choose.’
I believe you may already know the answer to that one Hugh. There are many points to consider. However, my opinion would be;
1.Do you really think many of the established players would stay. Yes, If they get paid the same. If the contracts are renegotiated in line with what the Whyte Knight has suggested, then no. They (and their agents) are mercenaries don’t you know!
2. Reduced contract or move as a free agent. – It makes sense, to me, to move as a free agent and possibly get a signing fee. If I were an agent that’s what I would be looking for my clients as it increases my fee. Why resign on negative terms when there could be money to be had. Even a drop in wages to one of the lower SPL clubs could be made up with a signing fee.
3. Which would you choose. – I would never have put myself in the position of playing for such an ‘Establishment Club’ with such an ‘illustrious’ history! Simples! 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 16 752 20095 2 28/10/2011 13:28:0 TheBlackKnight 80 15 “Mark/ Thomas,
where would the £5M come from if the ‘NewCo’ are excluded from European Competition. What benefit is there to investors?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 17 811 20157 11 28/10/2011 17:3:0 TheBlackKnight 80 16 “Lord Wobbly says:
28/10/2011 at 4:32 pm
‘Is the Pol Roger chilled sufficiently ……… ‘
Just like revenge, should always be served cold 😉
Ideally, drinking temperature at 7 to 9 °C (45 to 48 °F).”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 17 812 20158 12 28/10/2011 17:10:0 TheBlackKnight 80 17 “LSE closed at 16.30pm
No announcement. I guess if anything will come out, it will be on Monday.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 17 813 20159 13 28/10/2011 17:16:0 TheBlackKnight 80 18 “Stock down to a new low at close. 17.5p
Interesting times indeed. Do investors sense something.?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 17 815 20161 15 28/10/2011 17:33:0 TheBlackKnight 80 19 “Paranoid Timdroid says:
28/10/2011 at 5:19 pm
Allowing for ‘administration’ (the clerical type) then Monday. Like I said.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 18 859 20206 9 28/10/2011 20:18:0 TheBlackKnight 80 20 “PhilMacG, just comfimed the quote that RFC ‘ARE UNABLE TO TRADE’ came from one of his sources that had pointed to the Sheriff Officers and the takeover (not ‘fakeover’)”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 18 865 20212 15 28/10/2011 20:34:0 TheBlackKnight 80 21 “https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/Pmacgiollabhain/status/129997855925616640”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 18 869 20216 19 28/10/2011 20:38:0 TheBlackKnight 80 22 “Adam says:
28/10/2011 at 8:35 pm
‘It wont happen on Monday.
Or any day next week.’
I’m sure you are correct Adam. It may just be a waiting game now.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 18 892 20241 42 28/10/2011 21:54:0 TheBlackKnight 80 23 “The Mighty Quinn says:
28/10/2011 at 9:47 pm
Lol!!
We could call it Hallo Hallo’seen 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 19 918 20267 18 28/10/2011 22:56:0 TheBlackKnight 80 24 “Johnobhoyo says:
28/10/2011 at 10:49 pm
‘ as Phil’s ‘historic day’ was now upon us.’
Could it be just that? A day when they are ‘unable to trade’. It appears to me it still could be that day. The point of no return!
It may take a few days, maybe even a couple of weeks before anything official is certain. (until the first debt is not paid as it falls)
Incidentally, I wonder how much it is (and when it is due) to maintain the listing on Plus Market?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 19 928 20277 28 28/10/2011 23:10:0 TheBlackKnight 80 25 “‘borrowings’!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 21 1010 20360 10 29/10/2011 11:53:0 TheBlackKnight 80 26 “Adam says:
29/10/2011 at 11:21 am
‘Rangers have NOT (yet) ceased trading DAVE. FACT.’
Edited for accuracy 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 21 1027 20378 27 29/10/2011 14:14:0 TheBlackKnight 80 27 “I’ll second that Adam!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 21 1050 20402 50 29/10/2011 21:55:0 TheBlackKnight 80 28 “Great find Paul!
Guess it puts Rangers wee tribunal appeal in perspective.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 22 1063 20415 13 29/10/2011 22:50:0 TheBlackKnight 80 29 “‘Of course, a prepack can generate negative publicity if the former directors are seen to be just shedding liabilities. However, it should be remembered that the business was already insolvent prior to any appointment and a protracted process ending in liquidation could have been the alternative with the loss of many more jobs.’
‘The term pre-pack administration is now widely used in insolvency circles. It is a term used to describe a process whereby the insolvent company’s assets are sold to a third party prior to the insolvent company going into any formal insolvency process. It is most commonly used in conjunction with the administration procedure. Pre-pack Administration can save your business by writing off debt and emerging stronger as a Phoenix company.’
Interesting if true. Rangers are insolvent then? Where does that sit within the rules?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 22 1066 20418 16 29/10/2011 23:10:0 TheBlackKnight 80 30 “http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmcumeds/writev/792/fg65.htm”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 22 1070 20422 20 29/10/2011 23:19:0 TheBlackKnight 80 31 “NTHM, my understanding is it has to be ‘independently’ valued.
That should be interesting!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 22 1079 20431 29 29/10/2011 23:46:0 TheBlackKnight 80 32 “More interestingly, if Rangers are insolvent (currently) prior to the ‘pre pack’ being carried out, they would be guilty of knowingly trading whilst insolvent.”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 22 1080 20432 30 29/10/2011 23:51:0 TheBlackKnight 80 33 “http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?35448-BHEASTS-View-on-Rangers-Pre-pack-Admin
The demise of Scottish Football is apon us!
I for one (and the hvndreds I have spoken to) will never set foot in a football ground in Scotland again!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 22 1085 20437 35 29/10/2011 23:58:0 TheBlackKnight 80 34 “Having said that, I am certain HMRC will await the SIP 16 with interest!
Should anyone seek clarification, I suggest you look here.
<http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency/insolvency-profession/Professional conduct/how-complain-against-an-IP/pre-packs-complaints-process>”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 22 1093 20445 43 30/10/2011 0:16:0 TheBlackKnight 80 35 “http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency/insolvency-profession/professional/conduct/how-complain-against-an-ip/pre-packs-complaints-process
Cfc1888, Try this one again, or copy and paste into web browser.
Paulsatim, it appears so!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 23 1133 20486 33 30/10/2011 8:36:0 TheBlackKnight 80 36 “MDCCCLXXXVIII says:
30/10/2011 at 7:49 am
Agree, just read the article. How sad!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 23 1141 20494 41 30/10/2011 8:46:0 TheBlackKnight 80 37 “If Scottish football did irony…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2053028/SFA-appoint-war-crimes-prosecutor-lay-law.html”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 23 1147 20500 47 30/10/2011 9:6:0 TheBlackKnight 80 38 “Hugh McEwan says:
30/10/2011 at 8:38 am
Can I make a very quick suggestion.
‘If football supporters across Scotland want to make a protest about a new company taking Rangers’ place in the league, adopting the points Rangers have already won and taking part in the Scottish cup, then that protest should be aimed at Rangers.’
I agree! All those who love football in the country should march in protest to the SFA at Hampden. Imagine a couple of hvndred thousand protesters in the Southside marching into town.
Regarding your point about boycotting the NewCo, would it not be just as ‘corrupt’ for any club to accept the money of the NewCo fans when they come to visit?
If the SPL clubs and the SFA allow Rangers straight back in (other than dropping to the 3rd division to serve their time) it will be the death of football in this country.
Perhaps the paranoid in me tells me that’s what ‘they’ wanted all along. ‘We’ have always known a bias system existed that favoured one club. This will just be further proof.
Our club will be the worst damaged of all!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1175 20529 25 30/10/2011 10:13:0 TheBlackKnight 80 39 “easyJambo says:
30/10/2011 at 9:56 am
‘I don’t want to enter into a footballing debate….’
No debate from me EJ. Wholeheartedly agree!
There has never been a better time for one of the perceived ‘weaker’ teams to make their mark.
I, and others, had pointed to the fact that no Rangers in the SPL did not necessarily mean no SPL. the benefit to the clubs with perhaps an increased chance of winning something could mean an increase in revenue via attendances. (this would outweigh any possible revenue form the visiting ‘Orcs’, two or three times a season)
Simple rule of business is get the product and the pricing structure correct and you are bound to succeed if the demand remains.
Now, if other teams (including my own) can get their house in order, the family game may return.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1187 20541 37 30/10/2011 10:33:0 TheBlackKnight 80 40 “curious onlooker says:
30/10/2011 at 10:28 am
But at least they have a chance at it!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1192 20547 42 30/10/2011 10:40:0 TheBlackKnight 80 41 “Adam says:
30/10/2011 at 10:38 am
‘Paranoia ??……. Think thats the 3rd time in 2 days’
Welcome to our world 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1198 20553 48 30/10/2011 10:52:0 TheBlackKnight 80 42 “Lol LW. tiled walls????”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 24 1200 20555 50 30/10/2011 10:56:0 TheBlackKnight 80 43 “Well said Dave B, letter already away!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 25 1210 20566 10 30/10/2011 11:17:0 TheBlackKnight 80 44 “EJ, just picking up on your post again.
10-1 vote is greater than the required 83%? I thought 83% seemed strange but is based on there being 12 members. This would require at least 3 member clubs to vote against to halt the required 83%
100 divided by 12 (member clubs) = 8.33 x 10 (member clubs) = bingo!
If there are (in the situation to allow a NewCo back in to the SPL) 11 member clubs, the % vote is apx 9.09% per vote.
100 divided by 11 (member clubs) = 9.09 x 9 (member clubs) = OOPS!
Thereforein this case only 2 votes against is required, not 3.
My money would be on Inverness/ Motherwell/ Aberdeen/ Hearts/ Dundee Utd.
Any two of these clubs could (should) scupper the deal, on the assumption Celtic vote in their favour!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 25 1214 20570 14 30/10/2011 11:27:0 TheBlackKnight 80 45 “Lord Wobbly says:
30/10/2011 at 11:22 am
‘I was trying to illustrate the noise reverberating around the room. You know me and my issue with echoes. ‘
I got that 😉
Stop watching the game whilst in the bath 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 25 1221 20577 21 30/10/2011 12:30:0 TheBlackKnight 80 46 “TheBlackKnight says:
30/10/2011 at 11:17 am
In addition to my earlier post (and I am sure it has been mooted before), if the scenaro mentioned does occur, it would mean that Inverness (used purposely as the example, as they are currently bottom) would stay in the SPL and not be relegated as they would vote in favour of self preservation.
Only 1 further vote is therefore required. All of this is supposition and purely based on the decision making process being available to the SPL membership.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 25 1230 20586 30 30/10/2011 13:22:0 TheBlackKnight 80 47 “Private Land says:
30/10/2011 at 1:13 pm
‘I imagine that, if Whyte does not go for receivership, he must have an idea that if he puts the club on a sensible footing he will be able to sell at a profit?’
And I imagine the ‘venture capitalist,’ via Saffery, had weighed up the ‘risks’ including the inclusion of European Competition money.
‘Don’t forget, he paid £18m already and figured he could get that money back. If he frees up the tax debt, he may conclude that he could get more?’
No one would buy the club before the EBT tax scam surfaced. What is different in these austere times?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 25 1233 20589 33 30/10/2011 13:43:0 TheBlackKnight 80 48 “http://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/news/newsid=1652377.html
‘Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by ‘cleaning up’ their balance sheet while offloading debts ‘ thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a club’s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association and consequently three years must pass before a club can apply again for a UEFA licence. In other words, the three-year rule is designed basically to avoid circumvention of the club licensing system.’
Honesty is the best policy. Take your medicine Rangers!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 25 1239 20595 39 30/10/2011 14:38:0 TheBlackKnight 80 49 “Here’s one to get the grey matter moving!
Just picking up on yossery’s comment at 1:36 pm.
If as suggested in the post, can the following happen;
1. A company registered in Scotland be dissolved/ liquidated/ transferred to a company registered in England? But remains unaffected by Scottish Law as the IP are operating on the instruction of an English company.
2. If this is possible (and not allowing Scottish law as suggested), what are the implications for a non-dom company, registered outwith Scotland, owning and registering a football club in Scotland?
3. Where are the rules of the SFA/ UEFA that suggest ownership and registration of the ‘owner’/ ‘member club’ can be out with the country in which it wishes to play?
I ask this specifically with regard to the registration of the ‘Group’ and the two recent NewCo’s.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 25 1242 20598 42 30/10/2011 14:49:0 TheBlackKnight 80 50 “Hugh, one for you I think?
Companies House’s has powers, under 652a of the Companies Act, to stay the dissolution of a company.
‘This allows them to stay the dissolution should they receive an objection which is a ’cause of concern’. In practise, Companies House will stay dissolution for 3 months initially without an objector being required to present any evidence to support their objection. There is no requirement for an objector to be taking, or planning, legal action in support of his objection. An objector is able to remain anonymous if he so wishes and the nature of the objection does not have to be disclosed to the defendant. Further suspensions of dissolution of 3 months occur if the objector provides either new evidence in support of their claim or a reason why they are delayed in taking legal action.’
‘A malevolent objector can thus stay dissolution of a company for a considerable period of time.’
Could HMRC be that ‘malevolent objector’ ? And what effect could this be used to the benefit of HMRC?”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 25 1243 20599 43 30/10/2011 14:56:0 TheBlackKnight 80 51 “Hugh McEwan says:
30/10/2011 at 2:47 pm
That is my ‘limited understanding’ too! Perhaps SAMs Accountant Dads Brother Yossery has popped his head above the parapet!
It was more to do with the club (if insolvent and started up as a NewCo) being transferred to an English registered company. My understanding was that to play in the Scottish League, the club and company must be registered in it’s domicile!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1253 20609 3 30/10/2011 15:21:0 TheBlackKnight 80 52 “Private Land says:
30/10/2011 at 3:01 pm
‘TBK
Is your implication that the hive-down under a prepack could be postponed?’
I would of course require some input (legal justification) to the prospect but yes, that is what I am implying.
Hugh gives an interesting response however I still believe it may be open to HMRC in light of the possible monies owed. What implications that has I do not know. Perhaps freezing the assets?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1255 20611 5 30/10/2011 15:25:0 TheBlackKnight 80 53 “Johnboy says:
30/10/2011 at 3:04 pm
Thanks Johnboy, what it doesn’t state is that, for example, Rangers FC 2012, a company registered in England, are eligible to play in Scotland.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1258 20614 8 30/10/2011 15:41:0 TheBlackKnight 80 54 “yossery says:
30/10/2011 at 3:36 pm
Are you suggesting The Rangers FC Group Ltd AND The Rangers Football Club PLC are becoming/ about to become Insolvent?
I can’t see what difference that makes to RFC as a football entity about to hit the wall.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1268 20625 18 30/10/2011 16:18:0 TheBlackKnight 80 55 “yossery says:
30/10/2011 at 4:02 pm
‘You are pre-supposing that Rangers would or will hit any metaphorical wall.’
Insolvency is not a metaphor by any stretch of the imagination. In the examples you gave, you pre-propose ‘Group’ could become (go to the wall) insolvent, whereby English law would control the outcome of any subsidiary asset. Did you not?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1273 20630 23 30/10/2011 16:38:0 TheBlackKnight 80 56 “Hugh McEwan says:
30/10/2011 at 4:28 pm
‘No let’s stick to the nebulous distracting suggestions that Dermot Desmond has been involved in shady dealings with a former cabinet Minister. That’s so much more interesting than the point in hand.’
🙂
I’m sure the purchase of Lindon City Airport from Mowlem where DD (company) made a profit in excess of £700M has nothing to do with Lord Reid.
Or the ‘failure’ of Baltimore Tech. Even at that he made a few £M regardless. As a businessman I believe he is beyond reproach. I wonder if that can be said of The Whyte Knight?
Seems to me its another distraction to hit the boards. Quite often when trying to bury something pertinent!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1275 20632 25 30/10/2011 16:39:0 TheBlackKnight 80 57 “‘London’ even!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1279 20636 29 30/10/2011 16:48:0 TheBlackKnight 80 58 “PL, he did not buy Celtic. He has a major shareholding.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1281 20638 31 30/10/2011 16:56:0 TheBlackKnight 80 59 “‘I can’t think of anything he has given to the club other than the investment to buy shares (nor do I think he is entitled to).’
I believe there was talk of a debenture/ loan of apx £10M. This is interest free (I am led to believe) and may never be recalled.
I understand DD also went some way to ‘contribute’ to the signing of RK.
What he does with his money is his business. If he wished to invest heavily in Celtic he would have. He has explained on numerous occassions football is not a business to make money. His investment is an investment with his heart and not his head.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 26 1285 20642 35 30/10/2011 17:5:0 TheBlackKnight 80 60 “MDCCCLXXXVIII says:
30/10/2011 at 4:59 pm
Noted and Agree!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 27 1308 20665 8 30/10/2011 18:53:0 TheBlackKnight 80 61 “Adam says:
30/10/2011 at 5:08 pm
‘Ive never believed for a second that Lloyds, even in some sneaky roundabout way, have given Whyte £18m.’
Why not? They are/ were creditors for a number of his companies that above above radar (Tixaway and Liberty to name two)”
Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 27 1309 20666 9 30/10/2011 18:57:0 TheBlackKnight 80 62 “Hugh McEwan says:
30/10/2011 at 5:14 pm
Hugh! Genuinely laughed out loud! Nice one 🙂 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 27 1313 20672 13 30/10/2011 19:16:0 TheBlackKnight 80 63 “yossery says:
30/10/2011 at 7:03 pm
‘……. The power of the floating charge gives Whyte the power to appoint the administrative receiver under English law.’
How does that work then? Please enlighten.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 27 1328 20689 28 30/10/2011 21:31:0 TheBlackKnight 80 64 “OnandOnandOnand says:
30/10/2011 at 9:22 pm
You also missed;
RTC is The Whyte Knight
MB is RTC
DMcI is RTC
RTC is PMacG
It all a big lie!
There is no tax bill!
The Vatican is behind it all! 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 27 1331 20692 31 30/10/2011 21:33:0 TheBlackKnight 80 65 “The Mighty Quinn says:
30/10/2011 at 9:19 pm
‘Anyone got the inside scoop on tomorrows back pages?’
Yup!
NOTHING TO SEE, MOVE ON!
Or
NEIL LENNON MUST GO!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 27 1342 20703 42 30/10/2011 21:51:0 TheBlackKnight 80 66 “OnandOnandOnand says:
30/10/2011 at 9:45 pm
Perhaps it is just a case of the Whyte Knight, insolvency specialist, venture capitalist,……
‘it does exactly what is says on the tin!’ (armour in this case) 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 28 1356 20717 6 30/10/2011 22:18:0 TheBlackKnight 80 67 “OnandOnandOnand says:
30/10/2011 at 9:58 pm
Sincere apologies OnandOn, I couldn’t find the ‘irony’ icon 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 28 1359 20720 9 30/10/2011 22:22:0 TheBlackKnight 80 68 “Kip Kane says:
30/10/2011 at 10:00 pm
‘On the first day of the tribunal a signal was passed between Rangers and one of the judges and at least two of them picked up on it.’
Don’t wish to embarrass you, (I do really) but why do you believe there was more than 1 judge?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 28 1363 20724 13 30/10/2011 22:29:0 TheBlackKnight 80 69 “PL, in what way will they be debt free and continue as Rangers 1873 Ltd? with the squad? in the stadium? With investment? Without European money? And possibly not in the SPL.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 28 1374 20736 24 30/10/2011 22:43:0 TheBlackKnight 80 70 “Seriously!
When do you think the gates will be auctioned off? I have an interested party 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 28 1380 20743 30 30/10/2011 22:47:0 TheBlackKnight 80 71 “OnandOnandOnand says:
30/10/2011 at 10:43 pm
Damn!!! And the trap was sprung! I’ll have to reset it now.
Sam, what colour were his lordships socks ?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 28 1391 20756 41 30/10/2011 22:59:0 TheBlackKnight 80 72 “Remember remember the 5th of November, gunpowder, treason and plot!”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 29 1402 20767 2 30/10/2011 23:12:0 TheBlackKnight 80 73 “Is it PowerRangers?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 29 1405 20770 5 30/10/2011 23:19:0 TheBlackKnight 80 74 “iain mcg says:
30/10/2011 at 11:01 pm
‘The circular to shareholders makes it clear that any funds advanced by CW to rangers would be by way of loans, ergo covered by his fc and cash-neutral? Am I mistaken?’
I believe you may be. There is nothing to suggest that additional debts (other than what the Whyte Knight paid – even he can’t remember – for the Lloyds debt) are covered under the floating charge.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 29 1411 20776 11 30/10/2011 23:27:0 TheBlackKnight 80 75 “Hugh McEwan says:
30/10/2011 at 11:22 pm
Thanks Hugh, I stand corrected but was it not pointed to before (cant recall by whom) that in such an event the floating charge would only cover the original oulay to Lloyds.
The running costs, players contracts etc are unsecured? I bow to your superior knowledge on such matters.”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 29 1419 20784 19 30/10/2011 23:35:0 TheBlackKnight 80 76 “No problem Iain, happy to be corrected.
If a floating charge is a sum due, how can that be determined if the charge continually increases unless it is specifically registered against the floating charge?”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 29 1431 20797 31 31/10/2011 0:1:0 TheBlackKnight 80 77 “OnandOnandOnand says:
30/10/2011 at 11:53 pm
Many thanks OnandOn….. I couldn’t recall whom, but I recalled the gist of it. Or perhaps not! 😉 ”

Rangers Cash Flow: A Huge Problem 29 1435 20801 35 31/10/2011 0:10:0 TheBlackKnight 80 78 “Iain, would a MG01s not ordinarily have been submitted with details of the charge and the amount?”

The Devil Is In The Details 2 65 20890 15 31/10/2011 9:12:0 TheBlackKnight 28 1 “I have always preferred the phrase ‘God is in the detail’ 😉 ”

The Devil Is In The Details 6 270 21116 20 31/10/2011 21:0:0 TheBlackKnight 28 2 “Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan on 31/10/2011 at 7:54 pm said:
BRT&H
I have to say, a quite brilliant post! I humbly salute you!
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/the-problems-facing-the-sfa-if-rangers-fall-into-insolvency-a-guest-post-by-brogan-rogan-trevino-and-hogan/#comment-392”

The Devil Is In The Details 6 272 21118 22 31/10/2011 21:3:0 TheBlackKnight 28 3 “Was VAT due at the end of October?”

The Devil Is In The Details 6 280 21126 30 31/10/2011 21:26:0 TheBlackKnight 28 4 “the Don Dionisio on 31/10/2011 at 9:19 pm said:
Whilst one or two swallows a summer does not make, I do not doubt your skills! Chapeau I believe is the phrase 😉 ”

The Devil Is In The Details 6 285 21131 35 31/10/2011 21:36:0 TheBlackKnight 28 5 “Lord Wobbly on 31/10/2011 at 9:30 pm said:
Don Dionisio. Harper McLeod are done for. Two familia to go?
I thought that was 2 😉 ”

The Devil Is In The Details 6 293 21139 43 31/10/2011 21:59:0 TheBlackKnight 28 6 “droid on 31/10/2011 at 9:38 pm
Many thanks droid!
Hugh, I believe it’s here.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/managing/returns-accounts/deadlines.htm”

The Devil Is In The Details 6 296 21142 46 31/10/2011 22:2:0 TheBlackKnight 28 7 “Lord Wobbly on 31/10/2011 at 9:43 pm said:
‘…as well you know Fredo’
Are you suggesting The Black Knight is a ‘chocolate frog’ !!!! 😉 ”

The Devil Is In The Details 6 298 21144 48 31/10/2011 22:4:0 TheBlackKnight 28 8 “First being called a ‘chocolate frog’, now this!!!”

The Devil Is In The Details 6 300 21146 50 31/10/2011 22:8:0 TheBlackKnight 28 9 “tomtom on 31/10/2011 at 10:01 pm said:
‘Are Rangers on monthly VAT returns?’
This has been mooted before. I believe the general concencus regarding a company the size of The Rangers FC Plc, was that it will either be;
1. Monthly
2. Quarterly
3. Not at all 😉 ”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 305 21151 5 31/10/2011 22:15:0 TheBlackKnight 28 10 “‘But just saying it could even make it happen'”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 308 21154 8 31/10/2011 22:22:0 TheBlackKnight 28 11 “Hugh McEwan on 31/10/2011 at 10:18 pm
1. Monthly – disregarded as you suggest.
2. Quarterly – would make it December?
3. Not at all – seems plausible 😉 ”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 311 21157 11 31/10/2011 22:29:0 TheBlackKnight 28 12 “I should also qualify the last post by stating that I have assumed the quarterly dates (taking on board Hugh’s comment and that an annual payment could be considerable /less managable, given the period during the season) from April 2011 and that September (2nd installment) was paid :/”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 318 21164 18 31/10/2011 22:37:0 TheBlackKnight 28 13 “droid on 31/10/2011 at 10:26 pm
Great find droid. Interesting !
GLASGOW RANGERS (BUSINESS) CONSORTIUM LIMITED
Registered 19/03/2010 Proposal to be struck off, possibly for failure to return accounts
GLASGOW RANGERS (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
Registered 25/10/2011
Perhaps the ‘Newco’?”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 325 21172 25 31/10/2011 22:48:0 TheBlackKnight 28 14 “http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/spl/rangers/exclusive-graham-duffy-outlines-his-plans-for-a-supporter-led-takeover-of-rangers-football-club-1.989026”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 327 21174 27 31/10/2011 22:54:0 TheBlackKnight 28 15 “http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/9a9c08d868bbc1ffe7b7cd689c794869/compdetails
Apologies Paul,
Incorporation date 25/10/2011
For GLASGOW RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 329 21176 29 31/10/2011 22:58:0 TheBlackKnight 28 16 “droid on 31/10/2011 at 10:37 pm
Back to the ‘fit and proper person’ with two names and two dates of birth!”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 335 21182 35 31/10/2011 23:5:0 TheBlackKnight 28 17 “Paul McConville on 31/10/2011 at 10:40 pm
Begs the question WHY! did the Scottish Medjia not afford The Whyte Knight the same exposure?
DM appears to have used his influence well!”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 337 21184 37 31/10/2011 23:7:0 TheBlackKnight 28 18 “Hugh McEwan on 31/10/2011 at 11:01 pm
‘Gotcha’ back 😉 ”

The Devil Is In The Details 7 345 21192 45 31/10/2011 23:22:0 TheBlackKnight 28 19 “I believe it’s easier this way droid (if I may)
Mr Craig Thomas Whyte ( birth date unknown 😉 )
Company Summary
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C. Active
THE RANGERS FC GROUP LIMITED Active
MERCHANT STRATEGIC RENEWAL PLC Active
MERCHANT CORPORATE RECOVERY PLC Active
CAIRNWELL INVESTMENTS LIMITED Active
MERCHANT TURNAROUND PLC Active (Resigned)
COUNTRYLINER GROUP LTD Active (Resigned)
MERCHANT HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Active (Resigned)
LM LOGISTICS GROUP LTD In Administration (Resigned)
ZEMFILL PLC Dissolved (Resigned)
MERCHANT INTERACTIVE LTD Dissolved (Resigned)
INTERCITY GUARDS LIMITED Dissolved
INTERCITY GUARDS LIMITED Dissolved
WHYTE FORBES CONTRACT SERVICES LTD Dissolved
WHYTE PLANT LIMITED Dissolved
WHYTE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Dissolved
WHYTE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Dissolved
WHYTE HIRE LIMITED Dissolved
STRIDENT PLC Active (Resigned)
KRISTEN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD Dissolved (Resigned)
VITAL PLANT SERVICES LTD Dissolved (Resigned)
IN-STORE SECURITY SERVICES LTD Dissolved (Resigned)
HIRE ACCESS GROUP LTD Dissolved (Resigned)
CATHEDRAL SECURITY SERVICES (NORTHERN) LTD Dissolved (Resigned)
VITAL SECURITY LTD Dissolved (Resigned)
VITAL HOLDINGS LTD Dissolved (Resigned)
HAG 1996 LTD. Dissolved (Resigned)
CCS 1996 LTD. Dissolved (Resigned)
VPS 1996 LTD. Dissolved (Resigned)
ISS 1996 LTD. Dissolved (Resigned)
CAIRNHALL LIMITED Dissolved (Resigned)”

The Devil Is In The Details 8 361 21208 11 1/11/2011 0:3:0 TheBlackKnight 28 20 “Adam, touchÃ©, however;
STRATHCLYDE STEVEDORING SERVICES LIMITED Dissolved (Resigned)
CLYDEBRICK LIMITED Dissolved (Resigned)
GRAY BROTHERS (HAULAGE CONTRACTORS) LIMITED Dissolved (Resigned)
WAVERLEY INVESTMENT ADMINISTRATORS LIMITED Dissolved (Resigned)
WAVERLEY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Dissolved (Resigned)
WAVERLEY ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED Dissolved (Resigned)
CABERDAWN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Dissolved (Resigned)
Not knowing the reason for the above closures and taking on board droids comments (and over a period twice that of the Whyte Knight) edited for accuracy!”

The Devil Is In The Details 8 363 21210 13 1/11/2011 0:9:0 TheBlackKnight 28 21 “Adam on 31/10/2011 at 11:59 pm said:
‘from a guy who has never hidden the fact he deals with distressed companies.’
I thought The Whyte Knight was a ‘self proclaimed’ turnaround specialist?”

Promises Promises 2 52 21280 2 1/11/2011 8:59:0 TheBlackKnight 28 1 “Personally, I thought these two statements need some investigation…….
‘Rangers shall not make any admission of liability regarding the Tax Case without the written permission of MHL.’
‘Rangers shall make no attempt to communicate directly with HMRC regarding the (Big) Tax Case’
Further proof that the old board knew about the liability, but failed to alert the football authorities?”

Promises Promises 3 102 21332 2 1/11/2011 12:41:0 TheBlackKnight 28 2 “RTC……..
is there a date to this ‘contract’? Roughly, not an exact date (if that helps to protect your info/ source) ….. pre or post 31st March 2011?/ Pre or post 1st April 2011? for instance 😉 ”

Promises Promises 3 105 21335 5 1/11/2011 13:5:0 TheBlackKnight 28 3 “Paulie Walnuts says:
01/11/2011 at 12:57 pm
Many thanks Paulie, was hoping it would be earlier for obvious reasons. (albeit the background information would have been know presumably during due diligence period and to the purchaser – perhaps even to the previous due diligence period carried out by Ellis)”

Promises Promises 3 116 21349 16 1/11/2011 14:46:0 TheBlackKnight 28 4 “yossery says:
01/11/2011 at 2:22 pm
‘Bit of a contradictory message in the two statements.’
Apologies, but they are not.
The seller (MIH which owned RFC Plc) ….. on behalf of the Company (RFC Plc)
Rangers (RFC Plc) still have the right to settle with HMRC…..
Two and the same!”

Promises Promises 8 356 21607 6 2/11/2011 11:37:0 TheBlackKnight 28 5 “Apologies to all in advance (I haven’t caught up with all the goings on but have read the 466 form)
Am I correct in thinking that a previously held ‘floating charge’ has now become a ‘fixed charge’?
Forgive me if I am wrong but…….. a floating charge can only become fixed when the charge converts (crystallise’s). This is normally due to:
1. A default or non-payment of the agreed terms.
2. The launch of insolvency proceedings.
Any news?”

Promises Promises 8 361 21612 11 2/11/2011 11:55:0 TheBlackKnight 28 6 “I just noted also that P3 ‘statement of provision…’ notes that the new fixed charge is prioritised over the floating charge.
On first reading I assumed this was just for the applicable charge. However it has been suggested this is now PRIORITY in any event, even over The Whyte Knights floating charge.
It would really depend on what the value of the charge is and what it has attached to. Wouldn’t it!!!!!!!
The Certificate (p5) notes ‘The Instrument relates to a Charge created on 24 February 1999’

Click to access mg05s-june2011.pdf

The Form: 410s was filed with companies house on 8th March 1999 and related to a Mortgage/ Fixed Charge. This is the original charge held by BoS that The Whyte Knight assigned in the takeover from Lloyds.
I wonder if The Whyte Knight has ‘passed the hot potato’? Or is insolvency upon us?”

Borrow Borrow 4 165 21812 15 2/11/2011 21:1:0 TheBlackKnight 73 1 “the Don Dionisio on 02/11/2011 at 4:08 pm
rangerstaxcase on 02/11/2011 at 4:54 pm
The Don/ RTC,
I refer to my post on the previous thread and the actual (securing) ‘fixing’ of the floating charge.
This related both to the original assigned debt and the amended MG05s.
Is there a possibility, even slim, that the original debt assigned to Wavetower was funded by Close.
If true, perhaps we are now seeing The Whyte Knight’s inability to keep to the terms of the original assignment and the ‘debt’ has now been assigned to Close by way of fixing the charge. That would take the Whyte Knight out of the picture altogether, bar his £1 investment.”
Borrow Borrow 4 166 21813 16 2/11/2011 21:9:0 TheBlackKnight 73 2 “macon rouge on 02/11/2011 at 5:20 pm
‘Having looked at the document I agree that the ‘new’ fixed charge relates to the monies from Azure’
I don’t believe it does (happy to be corrected, not being financially or legal minded)
P5 of the 466s ? Form refers to the original charge over all of the assets. The one Wavetower ‘Purchased’ from Lloyds.”

Borrow Borrow 4 174 21821 24 2/11/2011 21:30:0 TheBlackKnight 73 3 “easyJambo on 02/11/2011 at 9:11 pm
Thanks EJ,
However, is it just me? Have I read the document incorrectly?
Does the 466 form not refer to a charge (Mortgage) 24th February 1999. Is that not the pre 2003 charge that was assigned to Wavetower?
Apologies, been a very long day!”

Borrow Borrow 4 199 21846 49 2/11/2011 22:17:0 TheBlackKnight 73 4 “A ten team league set up? 😉 ”

Borrow Borrow 5 217 21864 17 2/11/2011 22:43:0 TheBlackKnight 73 5 “Lord Wobbly on 02/11/2011 at 10:25 pm said:
‘Hmmm….the wee Gers too?…..I beginning to wonder if I’ve been a little hasty in embracing atheism! ‘
You were warned about the ‘detail’ 😉 ”

Borrow Borrow 5 219 21866 19 2/11/2011 22:45:0 TheBlackKnight 73 6 “EJ, as a football supporter and your contributions to this blog, I salute you. Hope it all works out for the best!
TBK”

Borrow Borrow 5 225 21872 25 2/11/2011 22:52:0 TheBlackKnight 73 7 “My money is still on Rangers! 😉 (buffers Et al)”

Borrow Borrow 5 232 21879 32 2/11/2011 23:1:0 TheBlackKnight 73 8 “Had someone previously suggested the best time to release bad news…..,,??
http://www.mediacollege.com/journalism/tips/bad-news.html”

Borrow Borrow 6 253 21901 3 2/11/2011 23:38:0 TheBlackKnight 73 9 “Lord Wobbly on 02/11/2011 at 11:32 pm
LOL LW 🙂
‘Whyte’ fist move as always 🙂 ”

Borrow Borrow 6 259 21908 9 2/11/2011 23:50:0 TheBlackKnight 73 10 “Lord Wobbly on 02/11/2011 at 11:47 pm
Whyte is King’s pawn 😉 ”

Borrow Borrow 6 261 21911 11 2/11/2011 23:52:0 TheBlackKnight 73 11 “MDCCCLXXXVIII on 02/11/2011 at 11:50 pm said:
‘LW/TBK
What will the MBB ‘pawn’ next?’
Lol 🙂
The Queens jewels ?”

Borrow Borrow 6 263 21913 13 2/11/2011 23:54:0 TheBlackKnight 73 12 “MDCCCLXXXVIII on 02/11/2011 at 11:53 pm said:
‘Perhaps the Whyte Knight is rooked…….’
Well he has a Castle 🙂 ”

Borrow Borrow 6 271 21921 21 3/11/2011 0:4:0 TheBlackKnight 73 13 “A group of chess enthusiasts had checked into a hotel, and were standing in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories. After about an hour, the manager came out of the office and asked them to disperse.
‘But why?’ they asked, as they moved off.
‘Because,’ he said, ‘I can’t stand chess nuts boasting in an open foyer.’
Sorry in advance 😉 ”

Borrow Borrow 11 504 22170 4 3/11/2011 20:7:0 TheBlackKnight 73 14 “Droid,
Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (Ø§Ù„Ø³Ù„Ø§Ù… Ø¹Ù„ÙŠÙƒÙ… Ùˆ Ø±ØÙ…Ø© Ø§Ù„Ù„Ù‡ Ùˆ Ø¨Ø±ÙƒØ§ØªÙ‡)
Mi dispiace! Pubblicato per esattezza.
‘Quia apud Dominum misericordia, et copiosa apud eum redemptio.'”

Borrow Borrow 11 513 22181 13 3/11/2011 20:52:0 TheBlackKnight 73 15 “Lord Wobbly on 03/11/2011 at 8:28 pm said:
‘Nope. My mistake. He’s showing off.’
Said the ‘brilliant, informed legend and chess master comedic genius’ 😉 (green face)
Half time and I still can’t get away from this site!!! Balvenie awaits 🙂 ”

Borrow Borrow 11 518 22186 18 3/11/2011 21:57:0 TheBlackKnight 73 16 “droid on 03/11/2011 at 8:24 pm
Yaa Muhammad!
namaste yabam! Pax”

Borrow Borrow 12 552 22227 2 4/11/2011 11:5:0 TheBlackKnight 73 17 “http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/uk_taxpayers_multi_billion_bill_for_new_euro_firewall_1_1946912
I wonder if this includes Rangers?”

Confidence Trick 4 168 22571 18 5/11/2011 19:8:0 TheBlackKnight 52 1 “Apologies if someone has raised this already. Please bear with me!
What struck me initially, was how poor the grammar appeared to be. (Or is it?)
‘that there are very definitely reasonable prospects of success’
This would suggest that there are ‘prospects of success’ and that THESE ‘prospects’ have a ‘very definitely reasonable’ chance of succeeding. (more than 50% would appear to be reasonable)
To my mind, the statement refers to a number of issues. Not singular, but plural.
What is unclear is how much weight these ‘issues’ carry in law. They may be minor or major. They even may be irrelevant.
The next sentence refers to a possible outcome. A negative one.
Further, the next refers to advice on ‘wrongful trading provisions’, enshrined in section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. These provisions are meant to ensure that hopelessly troubled companies enter the insolvency forum at the optimal time. (perhaps the Don/OnandOn/ Stunney or some of the other more notable posters {of which there are many in this area of expertise} could enlighten us to this and the possibilities/ eventualities).
Noting the above, if the document were written properly (grammatically correct) it would have read:
‘…….that there is a very definite and reasonable prospect of success’
Just my reading of it. (much like the MG05s, which appeared to be different from many)”

Confidence Trick 4 170 22573 20 5/11/2011 19:11:0 TheBlackKnight 52 2 “Rab/ LW, you have clearly lost the ‘plot’ 😉 ”

Confidence Trick 5 229 22637 29 5/11/2011 22:12:0 TheBlackKnight 52 3 “Again, I wonder if The Whyte Knight is at all concerned? Could this be the ‘acid test’ to his personal wealth and perceived ‘billionaire’ status?
‘214. Insolvency Act, Wrongful trading.
(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, if in the course of the winding up of a company it appears that subsection (2) of this section applies in relation to a person who is or has been a director of the company, the court, on the application of the liquidator, may declare that that person is to be liable to make such contribution (if any) to the company’s assets as the court thinks proper.
(2) This subsection applies in relation to a person if’
(a) the company has gone into insolvent liquidation,
(b) at some time before the commencement of the winding up of the company, that person knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation, and
(c) that person was a director of the company at that time…
(3) The court shall not make a declaration under this section with respect to any person if it is satisfied that after the condition specified in subsection (2)(b) was first satisfied in relation to him that person took every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company’s creditors as (assuming him to have known that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into solvent liquidation) he ought to have taken.
(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the facts a director of a company ought to know or ascertain, the conclusions he ought to reach, and the steps he ought to take are those that would be known or ascertained, or reached or taken, by a reasonably diligent person having both’
(a) the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by that director in relation to the company, and
(b) the general knowledge, skill and experience that that director has.
(5) The reference in subsection (4) to the functions carried out in relation to a company by a director of the company includes any functions he does not carry out but that have been entrusted to him.
(6) For the purposes of this section a company goes into insolvent liquidation if it goes into liquidation at a time when its assets are insufficient for the payment of its debts and other liabilities and the expenses of the winding up.
(7) In this section ‘director’ includes a shadow director.
(8) This section is without prejudice to section 213.'”

Confidence Trick 5 231 22639 31 5/11/2011 22:22:0 TheBlackKnight 52 4 “Should Collyer Bristow be concerned?
‘The High Court has ruled that directors who made representations that a company would meet its rental obligations on certain of its leases of property, when they had no intention of making payments after a certain date, were involved in fraudulent trading for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986. They were required to make a monetary contribution to the company’s assets in its liquidation, as were solicitors involved in the scheme that resulted in non-payment of the rent (see Morphites v Bernasconi [2001] 10 Current Law 312).

The Law

Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that if, in the case of a company’s winding-up, it appears that any company business has been carried on with intent to defraud its creditors or creditors of any other person, or for any fraudulent purpose, then the court may, on the liquidator’s application, declare that any people who knowingly carried on the business in that way are to be liable to make such contributions (if any) to the company’s assets as the court thinks proper.

The facts

The company was established as part of a road haulage franchise. It acquired some onerous leases through a former managing director, who was removed. The company’s directors, with its solicitors devised a scheme under which the shares in the company were sold to the father-in-law of one of the directors, and the goodwill was acquired by a new company that continued to trade under another name.

The directors gave assurances to the landlord that the rent under the leases would continue to be paid. It wasn’t, and the company went into liquidation. The liquidator asked the court for a declaration as to the director’s liability to make a contribution to the funds of the company in liquidation.

The decision
The court gave the declaration of liability. The directors had been closely involved in operating the business under the scheme, and the representation to the landlord about future payment of rent had been demonstrably false. They were required to pay the rent outstanding at the time they made the representation to the landlord that it would be paid, plus interest (£17,500) and a further contribution of £17,500 to reflect their dishonesty.

Comment
The case is a warning to directors not to represent to creditors that they will be paid the debts owed to them. In proving fraudulent trading, the dishonest element can be shown by the fact that the directors had no reason to think that funds would be available to make the payments. They do not have to intend or actually know that the payments will not be made (see R v Grantham [1984] 3 All ER 166).
Fraudulent trading claims are not limited to directors, as wrongful trading claims under s 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are. In this case, a claim was also brought against the solicitors who had advised on the scheme. The solicitors reached a compromise by paying £75,000 as a contribution to the company’s assets. In terms of the loss arising, this in fact extinguished the director’s liability in a payment sense.
A cautionary tale for all corporate advisers – including of course accountants, at least where the non-payment of the debt is likely to arise from the advice given.'”

Confidence Trick 5 239 22647 39 5/11/2011 23:15:0 OnandOnandOnand 12 7 “tomtom @2.15pm
TheBlackKnight
I think between your 2 postings, you have more or less hit the nail on the head. totmtom goes a long way to explaining CW’s strategy but overstates his involvement in the April/May sessions of the Tribunal. if this stv posting is correct,
http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/245624-timeline-craig-whytes-rangers-takeover-bid/
then Whyte was ready to do the deal in late March when he had the agreement of Lloyds and SDM. I think this explains why Whyte and Betts come on as directors of Wavetower in mid March.
As for wrongful trading, if Bryan jackson had given certain advice, and that advice was not followed resulting in further losses to creditors, then all of the directors who received that advice (the old board) but did not act on it may be as well to move their assets to BVI and join Wee Craigie. I wonder what that advice was”

Confidence Trick 6 284 22694 34 6/11/2011 10:1:0 TheBlackKnight 52 5 “Auldheid on 06/11/2011 at 8:44 am said:
stunney says:
06/11/2011 at 7:54 am
‘……..Note that debt nearly tripled in 2007 when EBT contributions nearly halved. Why did they halve?, What indications did Rangers have that EBTs were dodgy and why did they not start to make provision for a tax bill? ‘ (courtesy of BRTH and CasOb).’
As if you didn’t know ………. 🙂
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6901085.stm”
Confidence Trick 6 285 22695 35 6/11/2011 10:10:0 TheBlackKnight 52 6 “Apologies Adam,
Have to strongly disagree with you there!
A bank facilitates. It is a money lender. It is solely designed to make money from other peoples savings or borrowings. They set levels of interest and it is the individual/ companies choice to take the loan.
DM knew exactly what he was doing. It of course helped that his ‘dining’ friends were all in the right places (particularly at BoS)
‘More succulent lamb David?’….. ‘oh yes please!'”

Confidence Trick 6 294 22704 44 6/11/2011 10:41:0 TheBlackKnight 52 7 “Hi Adam,
I think we are at cross purposes here.
‘When a business (such as Rangers) gets it wrong and puts itself in so much debt that it cant trade on its own, then it THAT BUSINESSES FAULT, not anyone elses.’
I agree! However I would just caviat that with custodians of the business too!
My point was meant to reinforce that a bank is just a facilitator of debt. It’s up to the individual to choose to take on that debt (and interest etc)
And boy did DM dine out on other peoples money!”

Confidence Trick 8 380 22794 30 6/11/2011 20:18:0 TheBlackKnight 52 8 “Re RFCGLtd accounts.
Reminds me of a film……..28 days later 🙂
I wonder if The Whyte Knight was aware that the entire staff (of the team) of the accountancy firm (charged with signing off the annual accounts) were on holiday?
Well I suppose they have 28 days. Funny that! I’m sure something big was happening around that time.
Striking off and a Criminal Offence to add to the ‘charge sheet’ 😉
PS. not saying I told you so, BUT I did say ‘remember remember the 6th of November’ 🙂
Spooky or what!”

Confidence Trick 9 409 22825 9 6/11/2011 21:3:0 TheBlackKnight 52 9 “PMcC
‘It just proves the case that they are a biased organisation, biased against Rangers. They’ve done it several times this season. They’re completely biased. They did it to Ally McCoist. Every time they show something on sectarianism it’s Rangers fans. One has to wonder if there’s institutionalised bias in there.’
I wonder how Carter Ruck are positioning this one? I can picture the possible conversation in my mind…….
(Carter Ruck) ‘I’m afraid Mr Whyte, your comments in the press haven’t helped your case at all.’
(The Whyte Knight) ‘what do you mean?’
(Carter Ruck) ‘well Mr Whyte Knight, what YOU said was liable. Unless you intend to prove that the BBC are bias’
(The Whyte Knight) ‘what do you mean? They are bias. They have always had it in for me and for Rangers!’
(Carter Ruck) ‘Mr Whyte Knight do you have anything to back up your claims?’
(The Whyte Knight) ‘well no, but I know they are!’
(Carter Ruck) ‘there were a number of things that were alleged about you, were they lies?’
(The Whyte Knight) ‘well not exactly. Most of it was spot on. I found the programme quite informative actually’
(Carter Ruck) ‘well Mr Whyte Knight, you’re Carter Rucked, to use the vernacular.”

Confidence Trick 9 414 22830 14 6/11/2011 21:10:0 TheBlackKnight 52 10 “Hinshelwood!”
Confidence Trick 9 415 22831 15 6/11/2011 21:12:0 TheBlackKnight 52 11 “Paul McConville on 06/11/2011 at 9:04 pm said:
Me either 🙂 ”

Confidence Trick 9 417 22833 17 6/11/2011 21:17:0 TheBlackKnight 52 12 “http://www.scotzine.com/2011/06/hinshelwood-redevelopment-back-on-the-cards-at-rangers/”

Confidence Trick 10 472 22890 22 6/11/2011 23:22:0 TheBlackKnight 52 13 “Wether it’s £120M, £350M or £700M…… It didn’t happen, nor is it likely in the near future.
http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/rangers_development.htm”
Confidence Trick 10 473 22891 23 6/11/2011 23:22:0 TheBlackKnight 52 14 “Whether it’s £120M, £350M or £700M…… It didn’t happen, nor is it likely in the near future.
http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/rangers_development.htm”

Confidence Trick 15 714 23142 14 7/11/2011 23:8:0 TheBlackKnight 52 15 “rangerstaxcase on 07/11/2011 at 10:51 pm ‘Or shall I just post them?’
Can you send a copy here please…..,
Companies House
4th Floor Edinburgh Quay 2
139 Fountainbridge
Edinburgh EH3 9FF
😉 ”

Confidence Trick 15 720 23148 20 7/11/2011 23:15:0 TheBlackKnight 52 16 “Lord Wobbly !
LOL 🙂 ”

Confidence Trick 20 992 23427 42 8/11/2011 17:58:0 TheBlackKnight 52 17 “If Phil McG’s blog is true, I firmly believe it is Celtic that will suffer!
A life long supporter of the club, myself and my family will no longer ‘buy in’ (invest) to the business!
A sad day for Scottish Football. A sad day for Celtic FC!
I now have a picture firmly in my mind.
The scene from the ‘Braveheart’ movie. The dumbfounded look, sense of futility, betrayal and loss on William Wallace’ (Mel Gibson’s) face when The Bruce loses his helmet.
The decades of being made to feel second class to our ‘superior’ neighbours (both on and off the field) the inequality, the poor decisions and institutionalised bias are nothing on this.
Long may you rue your decision Celtic and the betrayal of your ‘faithful’!”

Taking One For The Team 4 194 23850 44 9/11/2011 16:17:0 TheBlackKnight 71 1 “easyJambo says:
09/11/2011 at 1:30 pm
Link to the ‘Group’ AR01 for anyone interested.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72141573/Rangers-Group-AR01-09-11-11
Interesting indeed. (assuming it is genuine and not a fake like the MCG being bounded around)
It appears to be RFCGltd (Wavetower) online annual return. It shows the share capital as being £1 = 1 share. There is 1 share allocated between the voting rights of three directors and is ‘owned’ by Liberty Capital. Therefore on paper RFCGLtd = £1. Which incidentally was what The Whyte Knight ‘bought’ the club for.
forgetting the ‘hmmmm?’ for the moment I am intrigued by the set up and share value being £1
(owned by Liberty Capital – apparently solely owned by The Whyte Knight, but Betts and Ellis have an equal vote each with The Whyte Knight for RFCGLtd?)
I guess there must be an attachment with all the money transfers and the ‘signing off’ of the audited accounts?
What should be included on an Annual Return form?
The following information is captured on an Annual Return (AR01) form:
Company Name (tick)
Company registration number (tick)
Company type (tick)
Company registered address (tick)
Principal business activities (hmmmmm??? nothing listed)
Company Secretary details (is there one?)
Company director details (tick)
The ‘made-up date’ (tick – made up 🙂 ironic eh! )
Details on the issued share capital (tick)
Shareholder details (tick)”

Taking One For The Team 7 341 24019 41 10/11/2011 10:8:0 TheBlackKnight 71 2 “I believe the only conceivable (acceptable) situation, where I find that Celtic vote in favour of Rangers return as a ‘Newco’, would be if it has already been agreed that 2 other clubs will block the entry as not to allow Celtic to be ‘portrayed by the media as being spiteful and only interested in their own survival’.
‘We did our best to allow them a swift return. Get well soon!’
Now wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books. Celtic give the thumbs up, Aberdeen/Dundee Utd (for example) give thumbs down.”

Taking One For The Team 7 350 24029 50 10/11/2011 11:8:0 TheBlackKnight 71 3 “fatbhoyslim on 10/11/2011 at 10:53 am said:
‘Looking at the dilemma that Celtic may face regarding the admission of a Ragers NewCo, would abstaining from any vote be a better option for the board?’
That is a very good question. I suppose it depends on the rules around an ‘abstain’ vote. Is it ignored? Does the vote of 9-2 still apply? Is 9 the quorum in this situation?”

Taking One For The Team 8 355 24034 5 10/11/2011 11:15:0 TheBlackKnight 71 4 “ramsay smith on 10/11/2011 at 10:41 am
I believe (I may be wrong) you are pointing to that which was posted previously by BRTH (I think?)
Rangers cannot have it both ways. If Thornhill successfully argues that the payments were contractual, then they are against the football rules. Rangers will win or lose the tax case to a varying degree but with that they also face the flipside of the possible penalties for breaches of footballing rules.
To my mind they are between a rock and a very hard rock!”

Taking One For The Team 8 357 24036 7 10/11/2011 11:18:0 TheBlackKnight 71 5 “Off topic,
Bit fuzzy this morning! Tommy Tiernan gig last night! Hilarious!! 🙂 well worth the hangover!”

Taking One For The Team 8 365 24044 15 10/11/2011 11:44:0 TheBlackKnight 71 6 “easyJambo says:
10/11/2011 at 11:24 am
Many Thanks EJ.
So the it is the milestone of 83% that is required.
i.e.
If 11 clubs vote (assume Rangers automatically disqualified from a vote)
lets say 3 abstain, that would require 83% in favour out of the remaining 8 votes. So it would have to be 7 out of the remaining 8 to push the vote through. This continues for all permutations until you reach a negative position. (less than half)
Where it gets interesting is when we say 6 abstain, for instance.
There would be 5 votes left. ALL of those would have to vote yes to meet the required 83%.”
Taking One For The Team 8 366 24045 16 10/11/2011 11:46:0 TheBlackKnight 71 7 “what if ALL abstain?”

Taking One For The Team 9 401 24086 1 10/11/2011 14:44:0 TheBlackKnight 71 8 “Adam on 10/11/2011 at 12:28 pm
Mooooooooooooo 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 9 430 24115 30 10/11/2011 17:8:0 TheBlackKnight 71 9 “Hugh, in addition it has to be assumed that the ‘history’ would be gone and the existing board ( The Whyte Knight/ Ellis/ Betts Et al) would not be allowed to operate if insolvency occurs.
BRTH, great post again. However I have always believed MB to be the ‘patsy’.
I’m not sure I would read so much into AJ comments. He claims to be a ‘Rangers man’ and surely was speaking from his ‘ex’ position.
I frequently discuss matters noting ‘our club’ (Celtic) I am however not a board member.
Just an opinion mind.”

Taking One For The Team 9 448 24134 48 10/11/2011 19:49:0 TheBlackKnight 71 10 “I fear it may have been the discussion the other day by Midlothian Celt (i think) noting his dislike for sauces on a bacon buttie! Heinz and HP were mention in dispatches!
Absolutely disgraceful……….
Not even a mention of Bransons or Daddies 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 10 459 24146 9 10/11/2011 20:45:0 TheBlackKnight 71 11 “Ahem?”

Taking One For The Team 10 489 24176 39 10/11/2011 21:28:0 TheBlackKnight 71 12 “Lord Wobbly on 10/11/2011 at 8:50 pm
LOL 🙂
Shame to waste the fine BALVENIE SIGNATURE (rare fine Scotch Whisky)
I prefer Gales or Manuka Honey”

Taking One For The Team 12 560 24250 10 11/11/2011 8:38:0 TheBlackKnight 71 13 “Does anyone know what the real reason for the court jester Gazza being in town?
‘I huv in me and, twa bots o papa. A packut uv Sainsbury Extra Special Chicken Baguette, a packit uv Walkers Roast Beef and a canny bottel uv Pomeray.'”
Taking One For The Team 12 561 24251 11 11/11/2011 8:40:0 TheBlackKnight 71 14 “rangerstaxcase on 11/11/2011 at 8:09 am
BRILLIANT 🙂 ”

Taking One For The Team 13 611 24304 11 11/11/2011 11:37:0 TheBlackKnight 71 15 “Paulie Walnuts says:
11/11/2011 at 10:24 am
Paulie, I believe you have ‘hit the walnut with the hammer’ in the second part of your post. (pardon the phrase)
In my opinion, the ONLY way forward for Rangers is the NEWCO option. As stated before they are between a rock and a very hard rock. Either way their goose is cooked. The only way forward for Rangers is to accept that they will be ‘phoenixed’. They will either be ‘killed off’ (in their present form, history and all) by the tax bill or if ‘successful’ in the tax case be held to account for fielding ‘ineligible’ players.
Much alluded to by other posters, I too posted previously on Phil MacG’s site (and have done for a couple of years) but have recently been moderated/ censored.
I pointed to the difficult position both Rangers and the Football Authorities would find themselves in. It points to deception by way of either collusion or corruption. I do not use this phrase lightly.
This must be investigated!”

Taking One For The Team 13 614 24307 14 11/11/2011 11:39:0 TheBlackKnight 71 16 “chicos says:
11/11/2011 at 11:13 am
Mark Dickson says:
11/11/2011 at 10:52 am
Of course in the interest of fairness & justice it would also mean that Celtic might face some retrospective examination & punishment for their use of EBT’s in the Juninho season and might have to forfeit league points, cup disqualifications if applicable. And the same would apply to any other club that used these schemes IF they didn’t provide full and complete disclosure in a timeous manner.
Rules are rules and should apply equally to all teams.
”””””””””””””””’-
forgive my ignorance mark, but didnt celtic ditch the ebt, contact hmrc, and paid the sums due accordingly ? the only issue around it as i can see is if celtic neer let the sfa/spl know that there were additional payments.. if they did then all is fine, if they didn’t, then as you say ruoles are rules…..
cheers
They did! all above board. Nothing to see…… move on!”

Taking One For The Team 13 620 24313 20 11/11/2011 11:51:0 TheBlackKnight 71 17 “Casual Observer says:
11/11/2011 at 11:41 am
‘I’d like to take a gander at a cooked goose phoenix’
LOL 🙂
much like a ‘Turducken’ 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 13 623 24316 23 11/11/2011 11:59:0 TheBlackKnight 71 18 “I see a lot of ‘newbies’ having a pop at Adam (again)
For what it is worth, Adam has fought his corner well. For the most part he has expressed opinion (much like any of the ‘Celtic minded’) on what he believes to be the case.
Adam has also pointed to (several times) what he believes to be fair regarding any outcome. He does not hide with his head in the sand.
I would be surprised if he will not be ‘cannonised’ as he clearly has the patience of a Saint”

Taking One For The Team 13 625 24318 25 11/11/2011 12:2:0 TheBlackKnight 71 19 “Mark Dickson says:
11/11/2011 at 11:58 am
Hi Mark,
On discovery of the use of the particular (one and only) EBT, I am told that Celtic Chairman BQ held that this was not acceptable. The authorities were notified and the payments were made.
It may also go a long way to explain why a disillusioned ‘BRAZILIAN STAR’ spent most of his time on the bench 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 13 627 24320 27 11/11/2011 12:5:0 TheBlackKnight 71 20 “Casual Observer says:
11/11/2011 at 12:00 pm
‘TDK’
Is that a dysphemism for me or an anachronism for a cooked burd?? 😉
TBK!”

Taking One For The Team 13 636 24330 36 11/11/2011 12:31:0 TheBlackKnight 71 21 “dave says:
11/11/2011 at 12:06 pm
Black knoght,,,
Dave, for what it’s worth I wasn’t referring to you (not being a ‘newbie’)
I quite often enjoy the difference, and expression, of opinion in the exchanges between yourself and Adam. I was merely highlighting that Adam, rightly ‘lauded’ for his measured response to the numerous challenges, has to continually justify his opinion. It appears to me as if he is being singled out. (which he is as Onandon….. as with others of the ‘blue persuasion’ do not warrant the same attention)
I agree with Fritz’, I think Adam should put himself forward for Chairman, perhaps with Onandon as Company Secretary……. 😉
They appear to have more of a clue as to what is going on than many, including the current and old board.
Whilst I too disagree with some of their assertions and positions, you have to admire their resilience.”
Taking One For The Team 13 637 24331 37 11/11/2011 12:34:0 TheBlackKnight 71 22 “footnote: dave, I prefer TBK or TheBlackKnight 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 13 638 24332 38 11/11/2011 12:35:0 TheBlackKnight 71 23 “Casual Observer says:
11/11/2011 at 12:26 pm
TBK
‘I noticed immediately and reposted, but got the message ‘you are posting too quickly’.’
I’m posting too quickly? 😉 ”
Taking One For The Team 13 639 24333 39 11/11/2011 12:43:0 TheBlackKnight 71 24 “Mark Dickson says:
11/11/2011 at 12:24 pm
I am told that Celtic acted wholly properly in relation to Juninho’s contract disclosure and did provided full & complete documentation once they were aware of the situation.
Juninho made a total of 14 appearances in the 2004-2005 season. (including cup competition and coming off the bench – he scored once)
I believe the EBT contract was appropriate for use but Celtic were guided away from making payments in that manner and paid the full tax liability.
Whilst I believe the situation however is entirely different to Rangers, I take your point though!”

Taking One For The Team 13 647 24342 47 11/11/2011 13:18:0 TheBlackKnight 71 25 “Mark Dickson says:
11/11/2011 at 12:54 pm
Agree MD,
Equally, (using your position and on the assumption the EBTs ran from 1999/2000 to 2009/2010) IF Rangers were found to have been ineligible and retrospective punishments applied then Rangers would have to forfeit their:
Championships – 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010
Scottish Cups – 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009
Scottish League Cups – 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008
On a quick check, Celtic would have a right to claim the 6 Championships, 2 Scottish Cups, 1 Scottish League Cup.
Falkirk, QoS, Aberdeen and Dundee, 1 Scottish Cup each
Ayr Utd, Motherwell and Dundee Utd, 1 Scottish League Cup.
But its never going to happen! 48 and counting 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 14 654 24349 4 11/11/2011 13:38:0 TheBlackKnight 71 26 “Point taken John. I’m sure Adam can fight his own corner (as he does). Noone should get special protection. It is open season after all.
It just gets a bit tedious (to me) with the constant positioning and going over points answered on numerous occassions. ALL posters points/questions ( whether they be right or wrong ) are valid.
That’s what makes this site both informative and a great forum for debate. (if the ‘spirit’ of the blog is upheld)
Perhaps Adam should consider putting a strap line at the bottom of all his posts. General stats, height , eye colour, beliefs etc………….. Wait a minute……… Who mentioned dating profiles 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 14 661 24356 11 11/11/2011 13:47:0 TheBlackKnight 71 27 “Hugh McEwan says:
11/11/2011 at 1:38 pm
‘…….No matter what Saint Adam says’
Now now Hugh 😉 LOL
Bit Premature…..Prayer’s are in the offering though!
‘Lord Jesus Christ , You made Blessed (insert name here) an inspiring example of firm Faith and burning Charity, an extraordinary witness to the way of spiritual childhood, and a great and esteemed teacher of the value and dignity of every human life.
Grant that they may be venerated and imitated as one of the Church’s canonized saints.
Hear the requests of all those who seek their intercession, especially the petition I now implore… (mention here your prayer request you wish to pray for).
May we follow their example in heeding Your cry of thirst from the Cross and joyfully loving You in the distressing disguise of the poorest of the poor, especially those most unloved and unwanted.
We ask this in Your Name and through the intercession of Mary, Your Mother and the Mother of us all. ……..Amen.'”

Taking One For The Team 14 666 24361 16 11/11/2011 13:55:0 TheBlackKnight 71 28 “Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
11/11/2011 at 1:46 pm
As always, we walk in the shadows…….. Great post again!
What goes well with Cooked Goose? 😉 ”
Taking One For The Team 14 667 24362 17 11/11/2011 13:57:0 TheBlackKnight 71 29 “Barcabhoy says:
11/11/2011 at 1:51 pm
‘Wouldnt it make sense for the QC representing HMRC to call the football authorities as witnesses and ask them what they were told by Rangers with regards to the operation of the EBT’s’
I’m sure that would be the case……. wouldn’t it!”

Taking One For The Team 14 669 24364 19 11/11/2011 14:0:0 TheBlackKnight 71 30 “Adam says:
11/11/2011 at 1:55 pm
Adam, I believe all are referring to the ‘3rd party arrangement’ which is not permissible.”

Taking One For The Team 14 675 24370 25 11/11/2011 14:4:0 TheBlackKnight 71 31 “Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
11/11/2011 at 1:46 pm
Reading the post again, I am certain RTC has alluded to this scenario but was ‘keeping the powder dry’
Can’t wait for the ‘firework display’. Should be interesting viewing.”

Taking One For The Team 14 677 24372 27 11/11/2011 14:7:0 TheBlackKnight 71 32 “FJ says:
11/11/2011 at 2:01 pm
‘So it would come down to goal difference, which is a bit more difficult to work out……’
Forget that…. look at who ‘should’ have been relegated 😉 ”
Taking One For The Team 14 678 24373 28 11/11/2011 14:10:0 TheBlackKnight 71 33 “Barcabhoy says:
11/11/2011 at 2:03 pm
‘Is there a penalty for lying to the tax tribunal ?’
I believe it is perjury ? ‘Giving false evidence in court (lying under oath) or giving evidence that you believe to be untrue, (even if it subsequently turns out to be true). Perjury is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to 7 years in prison. Perjury can also be committed in a tribunal or any forum where the person giving the evidence must swear an oath or affirm.'”
Taking One For The Team 14 679 24374 29 11/11/2011 14:11:0 TheBlackKnight 71 34 “dave says:
11/11/2011 at 2:00 pm
I disagree! 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 14 691 24388 41 11/11/2011 14:35:0 TheBlackKnight 71 35 “Adam, Peat is a ‘dead end’…… Try Ogilvie instead.”

Taking One For The Team 14 698 24395 48 11/11/2011 14:45:0 TheBlackKnight 71 36 “Adam says:
11/11/2011 at 2:38 pm
no argument from me there! 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 14 700 24397 50 11/11/2011 14:47:0 TheBlackKnight 71 37 “Hugh McEwan says:
11/11/2011 at 2:37 pm
‘That’s what I said, the jail.’
Succinct and to the point as always Hugh 😉
I recall The Whyte Knight ‘affirmed’ he was paying the small bill…….. didn’t he?”

Taking One For The Team 15 722 24419 22 11/11/2011 15:20:0 TheBlackKnight 71 38 “Hi Onandon…… I’m sure it is only if he is ‘non-dom’ would he need to ‘flee back’. I recall it being no more than 3months in any 12 month period.
I am certain The Whyte Knight will have set himself up so that he has to pay as little tax as possible. I believe if his earnings are from outside the UK then they cannot be taxed by the UK Government (unless it is from UK registered companies)
I’m sure the filed accounts for his ‘under the radar’ and above radar businesses located in this domicile would show what his personal earning were…. wouldn’t they?”
Taking One For The Team 15 723 24420 23 11/11/2011 15:22:0 TheBlackKnight 71 39 “dave says:
11/11/2011 at 3:10 pm
I would say they are most definitely inept. Corrupt on the other hand (whilst we may all believe it to be the case) would be difficult to prove.”

Taking One For The Team 16 765 24464 15 11/11/2011 17:11:0 TheBlackKnight 71 40 “Hellbhoy on 11/11/2011 at 4:43 pm said:
‘…….,,,follow the posts of RTC, Paulie Walnuts, PMcC, Adam, Onandon, BRTH, etc…….’
Edited for accuracy 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 16 772 24471 22 11/11/2011 17:18:0 TheBlackKnight 71 41 “BillyBhoy68 on 11/11/2011 at 4:59 pm said:
‘Is it the club to protect themselves in the event of a player being unavailable, therefore they take out an insurance policy to cover the clubs commitment to the player ?’
The player and club will most likely hold insurance policies. For players, I believe it is a must, if not very dangerous not to have one, either through personal injury or to cause (extensive / deliberate or career ending) injury to another player.
It has nothing to do with EBTs. However, if you are suggesting a player made a claim on an insurance policy for loss of earnings through injury, which included sums relative to EBT payments, that could be quite damning.
Anyone in mind?”

Taking One For The Team 16 779 24478 29 11/11/2011 17:24:0 TheBlackKnight 71 42 “Hugh, totally agree. There is no connection. We might as well be discussing Lester Piggot or Ken Dodd as being relevant to Rangers Tax Case. (Dextra has similarities, but also entirely different)”

Taking One For The Team 16 784 24484 34 11/11/2011 17:39:0 TheBlackKnight 71 43 “‘Discretionary Loan ‘ Paid by XYZ trust ‘ see separate side letter’
It’s a good point Adam. I suppose it depends on the content of the side letter and what it shows as being ‘discretionary’, how regular those ‘loans’ were, the amounts involved and what for. I’m sure they could look across these payments to draw comparisons/ conclusions.
e.g.
Player A requests £20k per month every month.
Player B requests £240k every year.
Player C requests £5k per week every week.
It doesn’t always follow that the payments will be given, (as they are discretionary) but if there are ‘similar’ payments (however structured) being made to players it could itself be quite damning.
I am certain HMRC may also look to Pension contributions and bonus payments, assumed as separate to the EBT payments.
HMRC, I believe, are ‘wise’ to this type of arrangement.”

Taking One For The Team 16 793 24494 43 11/11/2011 18:6:0 TheBlackKnight 71 44 “Adam on 11/11/2011 at 5:56 pm said:
‘So Rangers issue a contract saying they will pay money to ABC Pension fund and the Pension Fund will then pay the player proceeds of this.
Why is the above different ?’
It’s a pension fund and therefore is liable to taxation. (Assuming the pension fund also pays out when it matures at the end of the players career).”

Taking One For The Team 16 797 24498 47 11/11/2011 18:8:0 TheBlackKnight 71 45 “Hellbhoy on 11/11/2011 at 6:00 pm said:
‘TBK ‘ You do ask good questions mate 🙂 ‘
Can you point me to one ? 😉 ”

Taking One For The Team 17 802 24503 2 11/11/2011 18:16:0 TheBlackKnight 71 46 “Adam on 11/11/2011 at 6:08 pm said:
‘TBK ‘ It isnt about the taxation though. This question is in relation to receiving money from a third party on behalf of the club.
I am asking re the footballing rules, not the tax rules mate.’
Thanks Adam I got that. However, is it a third party payment? Rangers (in your example) make the payment. The Policy Provider (Pensions Co) pay out on maturity. Not on an ongoing basis therefore not a third party payment.
(assuming that’s what you were inferring)”

Taking One For The Team 17 804 24505 4 11/11/2011 18:23:0 TheBlackKnight 71 47 “Adam on 11/11/2011 at 6:13 pm said:
‘So as long as the contract says ‘when you leave the club, you may receive a discretionary loan from ABC Trust’ then its ok ?’
Adam, not sure if you have been at LW’s Balvenie, but are you confusing the two?
ABC (in your example) was a Pension Fund, not an EBT (trust) were discretionary loan/ payments can be made?
Now I’m confused! 😦 ”

Taking One For The Team 17 807 24508 7 11/11/2011 18:28:0 TheBlackKnight 71 48 “Hmmm? The payments (I assume) are only on maturity. Again assuming, this will be at the end of the policy (career end) and not during their career.
It’s clearly not the same as a third party giving discretionary loans.
I’ll have to check the R&R, but am sure insurance payments are covered and not deemed as either loans or third party payments.”

The Case: Q & A 1 41 24578 41 11/11/2011 22:51:0 TheBlackKnight 25 1 “Great post as ever RTC! I salute you as always 😉
Gwared,
An ’emolument’ is a payment or profit made from employment, salary, fees etc. and hence is taxable.
I believe The Don is using the Dextra case as an example where it was found that the emoluments were contractual ‘payments’ and not ‘loans’ and as such, regardless, were liable to taxation.”

The Case: Q & A 1 43 24580 43 11/11/2011 22:53:0 TheBlackKnight 25 2 “Damn Hugh, beat me to it! 😉 ”

The Case: Q & A 1 50 24587 50 11/11/2011 23:9:0 TheBlackKnight 25 3 “Gwared on 11/11/2011 at 10:56 pm
‘learned’ many may be, but to my mind they are no different to anyone. We are all equals on here. Some fortunate with their cut in life, others not so. Some better educated, no doubt. That does not give those individuals automatic respect or intelligence.
Anyone can be ‘learned’. It doesnt maje them right. (just ask any lawyer – who argues opinion for a living) Being open to new ideas, enlightenment and knowledge is of much more value.
I recall a very (very) intelligent and respected individual using the dismissive ‘how long is a piece of string’ phrase with a child. To which the child said, ‘twice the centre, to the end’
There but for the grace …….. 😉 ”

The Case: Q & A 2 52 24589 2 11/11/2011 23:11:0 TheBlackKnight 25 4 “Hugh McEwan on 11/11/2011 at 11:00 pm
Chapeau Hugh, Chapeau! 😉 ”

The Case: Q & A 2 59 24596 9 11/11/2011 23:28:0 TheBlackKnight 25 5 “Lol Don,
It’s an ’emoticon’ for future reference 😉
Semi colon ‘;’ followed by closed bracket ‘)’ = 😉
The phrase, ‘you’ll forget more than you ever learn’ springs to mind 🙂
( that’s a colon followed by closed bracket BTW)”

The Case: Q & A 2 62 24599 12 11/11/2011 23:34:0 TheBlackKnight 25 6 “Gerry S on 11/11/2011 at 11:19 pm said:
‘Pretty good summary, however over on ff, its still ‘a collection of timmies that know feck all. Just like Craig says, 99% crap’
Perhaps someone could point them to the posts from PW, Adam, OnandOn, EasyJambo, Mark Dickenson, to name but a few…………. None of which are ‘timmies'”

The Case: Q & A 2 65 24602 15 11/11/2011 23:36:0 TheBlackKnight 25 7 “Mark on 11/11/2011 at 11:29 pm said:
‘I find it hard to retain most of it though, but get the gist’
Glad someone does, better man than me! 🙂 ”

The Case: Q & A 2 67 24604 17 11/11/2011 23:38:0 TheBlackKnight 25 8 “PMcC, succinct as always LOL 🙂 ”

The Case: Q & A 2 71 24608 21 11/11/2011 23:54:0 TheBlackKnight 25 9 “Don, I know you can do it!!!”

The Case: Q & A 2 76 24613 26 12/11/2011 0:8:0 TheBlackKnight 25 10 “Tommy D on 11/11/2011 at 11:54 pm
1. No. (Rangers have been issued a bill – assessment by HMRC – Rangers are appealing that bill)
2. Nothing (One has to assume that HMRC has calculated the amount due based on players salaries and the payments they received – perhaps the two didn’t match up, hence the assessment!)”

The Case: Q & A 2 80 24617 30 12/11/2011 0:19:0 TheBlackKnight 25 11 “Paul McConville on 12/11/2011 at 12:07 am
LOL Paul, what sauce have you been on? 🙂
In the very unlikely event of being nominated for a proxy, as a ‘Celtic supporter’, I would respectfully decline. 😉
The question should be, who would want to attend?
OnandOn or Adam should by rights be there. Im sure they have very awkward questions that deserve a response. But who would ask them and how?
John MacMillan must by now have some real serious doubts, all gentlemans trust aside.
Perhaps The Whyte Knight will be surprised by the newly enlightened shareholders as opposed to the spoonfed FF?”

The Case: Q & A 2 82 24620 32 12/11/2011 0:27:0 TheBlackKnight 25 12 “The Don, perhaps you may be demoted to ‘first amongst unequals’ 😉
(sorry couldn’t resisist)”

The Case: Q & A 2 85 24623 35 12/11/2011 0:47:0 TheBlackKnight 25 13 “I’m intrigued by this.,,,
There are more tax issues?
RYC WROTE; ‘Currently, the biggest other issue Rangers face in their tax affairs is simply failing to keep up with remittances on time. Every employer is required to submit the taxes deducted from employees’ salaries (and VAT receipts) promptly and on a set schedule. Rangers made the late payment of creditors, including HMRC, into an official policy before the takeover even occurred according to documents in my possession. Whyte seems to have embraced this policy of late payment as his own. We will later see how this policy will likely have artificially boosted Rangers’ cash and reported Net Debt in their 2011 Annual Report.’
Is that the same as ‘failing to meet debts as they fall’ ?”

The Case: Q & A 2 87 24625 37 12/11/2011 0:48:0 TheBlackKnight 25 14 “‘RTC’
Damn these sausage fingers!!!”

The Case: Q & A 2 89 24627 39 12/11/2011 0:52:0 TheBlackKnight 25 15 “‘The more I try and reason this the more tangled it becomes…who knew what when etc.’
You are pulling the right thread though!”

The Case: Q & A 2 91 24629 41 12/11/2011 0:59:0 TheBlackKnight 25 16 “gunnerb on 12/11/2011 at 12:52 am
‘You see my mule don’t like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you’re laughing at him. Now if you apologise like I know you’re going to, I might convince him that you really didn’t mean it..'”
The Case: Q & A 2 92 24630 42 12/11/2011 1:1:0 TheBlackKnight 25 17 “Dougie, Lol 🙂 ”

The Case: Q & A 2 98 24637 48 12/11/2011 1:19:0 TheBlackKnight 25 18 “Thanks Paul, I believe it’s the one with the 6year rule was mooted?
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/did-craig-whyte-and-rangers-mislead-the-court-of-session/”

The Case: Q & A 3 102 24641 2 12/11/2011 1:39:0 TheBlackKnight 25 19 “Wallyjo on 12/11/2011 at 1:27 am
Perhaps they could return with an explanation as to why it took 10years for this to come to the fore and only through a tax assessment appeal. (instigated by Rangers, not by any investigation by the FA)”

The Case: Q & A 3 104 24645 4 12/11/2011 1:50:0 TheBlackKnight 25 20 “Paulie Walnuts on 12/11/2011 at 1:38 am said:
‘Interesting week ahead.
Capita v Rangers on in Glasgow.
Positive action required by Rangers in McIntyre’s case.
Broadfoot’s agent still not paid.
Levy MacRae complaint case coming up.’
Not forgetting the conclusion of the ‘big case’ and the soon to be ‘liable case’ against Auntie Beeb, and perhaps a triple date ? 🙂 ”

The Case: Q & A 3 106 24647 6 12/11/2011 2:2:0 TheBlackKnight 25 21 ” 🙂 ”

The Case: Q & A 4 178 24741 28 12/11/2011 17:8:0 TheBlackKnight 25 22 “TMWTL on 12/11/2011 at 4:30 pm said:
RTC
‘Any chance of removing this individual from posting utter nonsense?’
I’ll second that !!
RTC ?”

The Case: Q & A 6 261 24829 11 13/11/2011 10:35:0 TheBlackKnight 25 23 “Off topic I know, but very intrigued about these alleged ‘offensive’ songs allegedly reported to UEFA by Strathclyde Police.
This was without the clubs knowledge, despite working in partnership with clubs in regard to fan behaviour.
I hope that statements have been taken and officer registration numbers produced. It would be interesting if those individuals concerned where of a particular persuasion.
These will be public documents and should be freely available.
Incidentally, was the song ‘3-1, 3-1,3-1’ haven’t heard that in a while, but can understand why certain members of Strathclydes finest (with an agenda) would find it offensive! 😉 ”

The Case: Q & A 6 268 24836 18 13/11/2011 11:10:0 TheBlackKnight 25 24 “theambler on 13/11/2011 at 10:57 am said:
‘Are you suggesting the police pretended to hear a hate filled song that was in fact a song affirming the brotherhood of man,’
Are you suggesting they did hear ‘hate filled’ songs? Not a CP!
So therefore, I would not suggest the individual officer(s) in this case, pretended to hear something that didn’t exist, nor that they did not inform the club of their intentions, but perhaps because (not necessarily in spite of)
Rangers current predicament they needed to ‘balance’ the coverage of a ‘hot topic’ that should be discussed elsewhere. It is intriguing though!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/probe_into_celtic_fans_as_rangers_top_ban_league_1_1963278”

The Case: Q & A 6 271 24839 21 13/11/2011 11:36:0 TheBlackKnight 25 25 “Agree Brenda, it is in the public interest for that to happen and the reasons for it to have been reported. I feel there are ‘wider’ political issues at hand here.
I for one have always said certain songs have no place at football. I am more than happy with the overwhelming majority of the home support (with the exception of Juan Guy 😉 )
I am told that the song (chant) in question is ‘Paddy McCourt’s Fenian Army’. It will be interesting to see what judgement (if any) is given.
It would be like arresting a black man for racial abuse of his brother when saying ‘leave my n*gger alone’. If they choose to dub themselves Fenians than that is their choice. Should an opposing fan call them a ‘Fenian B*stard’ that is an entirely different matter, and is one for the police.
I believe (individual officers) Strathclyde Police have greatly embarrassed themselves by this however, and perhaps deliberately, highlighting the perceived difficulties they have with current and proposed legislation.”

The Case: Q & A 6 275 24843 25 13/11/2011 11:41:0 TheBlackKnight 25 26 “Back on topic, Adam any further with the spending profiles?”

The Case: Q & A 6 280 24848 30 13/11/2011 12:0:0 TheBlackKnight 25 27 “curious onlooker on 13/11/2011 at 11:45 am
I believe you asked, and answered, your own question there?”
The Case: Q & A 6 281 24849 31 13/11/2011 12:4:0 TheBlackKnight 25 28 “Night Terror on 13/11/2011 at 11:57 am said:
‘Mr Whyte refutes all allegations of criminality made by the BBC.’
Auntie Beeb didn’t make the allegations. They conveyed them in the interest of the wider public.”

The Case: Q & A 6 283 24851 33 13/11/2011 12:12:0 TheBlackKnight 25 29 “curious onlooker on 13/11/2011 at 12:09 pm
In football, there is no ‘moral high-ground’. (if that helps)”

The Case: Q & A 6 288 24856 38 13/11/2011 12:29:0 TheBlackKnight 25 30 “Hugh McEwan on 13/11/2011 at 12:21 pm said: ‘When did Strathclyde Police start reporting things to UEFA.’
That’s why it’s ‘intriguing’ Hugh!
http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/scottish-premier/celtic/278788-inquiry-launched-over-offensive-songs-at-celtic-match/”
The Case: Q & A 6 289 24857 39 13/11/2011 12:35:0 TheBlackKnight 25 31 “curious onlooker on 13/11/2011 at 12:23 pm said: ‘Well you´d better tell that to some of your colleagues on here !’
I am not, nor do I purport to be, a ‘mouthpiece’ for the Celtic Support. Each a man (and woman) their own.
In this blog, in particular, a stance can be taken (moral high-ground as you put it) as Celtic are not the club under scrutiny for alleged financial impropriety or unpaid tax on a scale never before seen that may blacken the name of Scottish Football for many a year to come. If that helps.”

The Case: Q & A 6 292 24860 42 13/11/2011 12:51:0 TheBlackKnight 25 32 “Was it the latter Hugh?
Intriguing and ‘difficult’ position Strathclyde Police have placed themselves in.
On reading of the report (again) it appears that no arrests were made and investigations are ongoing? One would have thought the investigations would have been substantiated and concluded prior to any ‘official’ report being submitted.”

The Case: Q & A 7 314 24883 14 13/11/2011 14:57:0 TheBlackKnight 25 33 “Night Terror on 13/11/2011 at 2:14 pm
Apologies Night Terror, agree with your sentiment. I was personalising not generalising.”

The Case: Q & A 8 366 24937 16 13/11/2011 21:11:0 TheBlackKnight 25 34 “Duggie,
‘It’s not the case that Schroedinger’s cat itself claims to be both alive and dead for the sake of an extra titbit.’
No. It’s the ‘observer’ that claims it (the cat belonging to Schroedinger) is both dead and alive until the cask is opened.
………….. Or is it? 🙂 ”

The Case: Q & A 8 369 24941 19 13/11/2011 21:21:0 TheBlackKnight 25 35 “Hugh McEwan on 13/11/2011 at 8:48 pm said:
On The Tribunal.
‘As far as I am aware Andrew Thornhill is the top QC at one of the top tax Chambers. He is considered one of the top men in the country in dealing with these issues.’
Does he know what sandwich Gazza brought with him?”

The Case: Q & A 8 382 24954 32 13/11/2011 21:47:0 TheBlackKnight 25 36 “MDCCCLXXXVIII on 13/11/2011 at 9:42 pm said:
‘………..there should of course have only been one ‘the’.’
Yeah, the spelling and grammar police would have been after you for that one 🙂
Or was it a Freudian slip. ‘THE side letter and ‘the’ side letter’ 😉 ”

The Case: Q & A 8 394 24966 44 13/11/2011 22:9:0 TheBlackKnight 25 37 “Gwared on 13/11/2011 at 7:45 pm
You could petition your local MP/MSP to have it raised in parliament with a view to an ‘independent review’ or try here.
http://offline.cooperatives-uk.coop/live/images/cme_resources/Users/CMS/CMS-response-inquiry-into-future-of-Scottish-Football.doc”

The Case: Q & A 9 401 24973 1 13/11/2011 22:14:0 TheBlackKnight 25 38 “Adam,
Wouldn’t it be easier to post net debt/ net spend and tax liability for the relative years.
I’m sure that’s what everyone is edging toward knowing and the ‘whatifery’ surroundsing those figures.
Apologies in advance 😉 ”

The Case: Q & A 9 408 24980 8 13/11/2011 22:27:0 TheBlackKnight 25 39 “Adam on 13/11/2011 at 10:19 pm
Don’t hold back anything! 🙂
1) Agree (but it may go some way to resolve/ dispel many of the mooted points)
2) Agree
3) Agree
4) Agree
5) Agree
6) Agree (as long as you don’t mean moi!) 🙂 ”

The Case: Q & A 9 411 24983 11 13/11/2011 22:31:0 TheBlackKnight 25 40 “Arfurfuxake on 13/11/2011 at 10:25 pm
Point of info.
Adam does not ‘discredit’. He may differ on many points (which he is entitled to do) but never has he discredited the blog or any of the posters (despite ongoing attacks)
Adam appears to be a fully fledged member of the ‘head out of the sand, non sectarian, rational, love of football supporters club.’ regardless of the team he follows!”

The Case: Q & A 9 437 25009 37 13/11/2011 23:4:0 TheBlackKnight 25 41 “Brenda on 13/11/2011 at 11:01 pm
I didn’t even realise I was in the running 🙂 LOL!”

The Case: Q & A 9 443 25016 43 13/11/2011 23:11:0 TheBlackKnight 25 42 “I believe Paulie is in a far better position than I for dates. An invite to a party on the other hand…….. Can LW come so I can share his expensive whisky?

The Case: Q & A 10 460 25033 10 13/11/2011 23:41:0 TheBlackKnight 25 43 “‘angels share’!!!!! Suddenly my nip has become a wiff 😦 ”

The Case: Q & A 10 466 25039 16 14/11/2011 0:11:0 TheBlackKnight 25 44 “Gwared/ Hugh
This may be of use?
http://www.5rb.com/case/Adams-v-Guardian-Newspapers-Ltd”

The Case: Q & A 11 539 25115 39 14/11/2011 12:28:0 TheBlackKnight 25 45 “Hugh McEwan on 14/11/2011 at 10:20 am
Hugh, the ‘Pedant Police’ have been called to look into the actions of the Pedantic Police in the absence of the Spelling Police 😉 ”

The Case: Q & A 12 568 25145 18 14/11/2011 13:53:0 TheBlackKnight 25 46 “Thanks EJ,
Saves me asking Adam to confirm in advance of his possible ‘put down’ of the conspiracy theorists (given Jack (John) McGinn and John McBeth were SFA Presidents at the time of the possible misuse of EBTs)
I believed it may have been Jack but wasn’t entirely sure of his tenure. Thanks !”

The Case: Q & A 12 578 25156 28 14/11/2011 14:29:0 TheBlackKnight 25 47 “Dan’aidh on 14/11/2011 at 2:19 pm said:
Message for the grammarians ‘In language whatever is, is correct’
Edited for accuracy TBK 2011 😉 ”

The Case: Q & A 12 584 25162 34 14/11/2011 14:54:0 TheBlackKnight 25 48 “Daft Laddie,
I believe it has been answered before and also in RTC blog (this thread, see above)
‘When will we know the result?
There is no set schedule for the judges to post their findings. (It will be posted as an anonymised entry on the tribunals service website. Rangers will not be named. However, you can be sure that I will help decode anything that is not clear). It is probable that we will learn the outcome sometime in March 2012. A little earlier is possible, as is the answer coming much later. All of this assumes that the FTT does indeed conclude on schedule next week.’
In addition, it would be fair to say each Counsel will have a better idea of their position once all of the submissions/ ‘closing statements’ have been made. That said however, a bullish Counsel will not admit defeat until the final verdict is received. (kind of like Christmas for them)”

The Case: Q & A 12 594 25172 44 14/11/2011 15:31:0 TheBlackKnight 25 49 “curious onlooker on 14/11/2011 at 3:00 pm
Unless The Whyte Knight was respresented (which is unlikely), how will they gauge how it went, other than that which Counsel decides to convey to them (via MIH)”

The Case: Q & A 13 602 25180 2 14/11/2011 15:45:0 TheBlackKnight 25 50 “Buon pomeriggio The Don,
Surely, the question should be: ‘why haven’t the SPL/SFA had a rule in place’ or at the very least tabled a proposal or contingency for such an event.
The wider issues of this case and those of clubs going into administration in recent times should have prompted such discussions.
There are none so blind as those who can see but chose not to!”

The Case: Q & A 13 604 25182 4 14/11/2011 16:5:0 TheBlackKnight 25 51 “curious onlooker on 14/11/2011 at 3:57 pm
Point taken. But as BRTH points to in an earlier post their are wider questions to be answered after this ‘side show’.
I too have stated before.
Q. Collusion? Deception? Maladministration? Incompetence? (by whom)”
The Case: Q & A 13 605 25183 5 14/11/2011 16:7:0 TheBlackKnight 25 52 “‘there are wider’
Hung by my own noose! 🙂 “

THE MAN THE BHEASTS CAN'T TAME

A HANDWRINGER IS SOMEONE WHO FEEDS THE BHEAST HOPING IT WILL EAT HIM LAST

Monthly Archives: October 2019

RANGERS TAX CASE UNCOVERED THE PODCAST. THE CRETIN WHO STARTED THE RTC BLOG & TWITTER ACCOUNT IS BBC SCOTLAND PRODUCER PAUL BRADLEY

RANGERS TAX CASE UNCOVERED: THE BLACK KNIGHT AKA DOMINIC PAUL OF IBDP INTERIOR DESIGNS.