Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They are only collecting the evidence though, it's someone else that will actually make the decision.

To be honest, I'd be wary of ANY Glasgow based organisation being able to carry out any task unbiased when it comes to Rangers. I reckon they'd be too worried about potential repurcussions to carry out a full and proper investigation and present all the facts. It is guaranteed to be skewed in favour of The Rangers.

My point, badly put, is that I am surprised the Huns have taken this long to complain, given that HM were in post weeks ago.

[Famous5forever]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

David Murray making a statement on EBT's shortly. This could be very interesting.

https://twitter.com/stv_andy/status/232443991940014081

im sure he was Duped will what the Spin will be.

[PatHead]

Re-arrange these words

Did, it, wiznae me, that, ran away, it was a, big man.-

or

Anyone for lamb?

[Famous5forever]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Re-arrange these words

Did, it, wiznae me, that, ran away, it was a, big man.-

or

Anyone for lamb?

And it was partly to blame because of excessive consumption of Fine Wine at lunch time which imparred his judgement its all Jim Traynors fault Guv nowt to do wi me.

[H18sry]

Murray's full statement:



I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.
While the "Newco" Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision.

I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.
This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.

I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.

The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.
However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close - now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.

Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.
This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.

It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.
I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.

I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.
During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.

As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.

To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.
This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.

The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.
It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.

If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.

It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.
Much has been said and written about EBTs.

It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.
It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.

This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.
Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.
The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not "remuneration" in terms of any rules applying to the Club.
Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.

As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.
For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.

In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.
For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.
Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.

I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.
However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murray's full statement:



I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.
While the "Newco" Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision.

I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.
This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.

I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.

The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.
However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close - now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.

Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.
This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.

It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.
I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.

I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.
During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.

As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.

To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.
This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.

The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.
It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.

If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.

It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.
Much has been said and written about EBTs.

It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.
It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.

This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.
Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.
The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not "remuneration" in terms of any rules applying to the Club.
Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.

As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.
For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.

In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.
For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.
Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.

I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.
However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.

Yet again it's everyone else's fault for wishing to punish Rangers.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

Billy Dodds is going to be gutted, he was convinced it was money due to him rather than an interest gathering loan!!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Billy Dodds is going to be gutted, he was convinced it was money due to him rather than an interest gathering loan!!

SDM has said a lot of the right things, IMO. From an RFC point of view, the payments to the trusts were legitimate. It is what happened to that money once it was in the control of the trust that is important from the tax point of view.

However, it is this phrase that it is crucial. "There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual".

Is that true? That will, IMO, be the central argument in the SPL investigation.

Of course, it could all be cleared up nicely if all of the recipients of the loans paid them back at the agreed times.

[CraigHibee]

stv news reporting that sandaza is close to agreeing a £5k a week contract, hope the huns are back in administration by Christmas

[LeighLoyal]

Murray: desperate words from a desperate man that knows he's very likely going to jail, an outcome that would be a just one for his £700m debt mountain, part of which funded his wild excesses at RFC 1872-2012.

[Col2]

and yet not an apology, an apology to the rest of Scottish Football, Rangers fans, Scottish football supporters, the wide range of small creditors and anyone else impacted by his and Whyte's actions. Yes Whyte was the fraudster who pushed them over the edge but David Murray created the total mess that exited before.

Despite hiding for months, avoiding all publicity he comes out at this stage and yet still no remorse or apology. Me thinks SPL verdict or EBT tax case decision is imminent.

[Spike Mandela]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

and yet not an apology, an apology to the rest of Scottish Football, Rangers fans, Scottish football supporters, the wide range of small creditors and anyone else impacted by his and Whyte's actions. Yes Whyte was the fraudster who pushed them over the edge but David Murray created the total mess that exited before.

Despite hiding for months, avoiding all publicity he comes out at this stage and yet still no remorse or apology. Me thinks SPL verdict or EBT tax case decision is imminent.

My first thought on hearing he had made a statement was that the Big tax case appeal result must be imminent and Murray has got wind of it.

[Ozyhibby]

Murray offers no new evidence for the defence other than 'we did nothing wrong, how dare you suggest we did'.
A weak statement.

[LeighLoyal]

Anyone know how they managed to have their Wiki page reinstated to make it look like Sevco 2012 = RFC 1872 The filth also still have the five stars above their Sevco badge according to the training clip I saw at Sevco Park. How is that allowed? They have no history to claim.

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murray's full statement:



I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.
While the "Newco" Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision.

I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.
This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.

I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.

The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.
However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close - now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.

Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.
This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.

It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.
I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.

I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.
During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.

As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.

To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.
This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.

The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.
It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.

If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.

It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.
Much has been said and written about EBTs.

It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.
It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.

This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.
Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.
The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not "remuneration" in terms of any rules applying to the Club.
Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.

As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.
For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.

In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.
For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.
Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.

I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.
However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.

Thank you for clearing that up Sir David.

Would you mind awfully passing the mint sauce?

[blackpoolhibs]

Murray must be crapping his pants, he offloaded the club and thought that he'd got rid of the mess he created, but its going to come back and kick him right in the baws.

If anyone at sevco thought they would win the EBT case, they would never have put the club into liquidation?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murray must be crapping his pants, he offloaded the club and thought that he'd got rid of the mess he created, but its going to come back and kick him right in the baws.

If anyone at sevco thought they would win the EBT case, they would never have put the club into liquidation?

Nah. It would have still gone into administration, and liquidation would have followed. Even without the EBT debt, the company was insolvent. If the owners hadn't put it under, HMRC would have.

[Famous5forever]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nah. It would have still gone into administration, and liquidation would have followed. Even without the EBT debt, the company was insolvent. If the owners hadn't put it under, HMRC would have.

Which would have been the best thing to happen as they would have appointed proper Admins that D&P mob were at it from day 1.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which would have been the best thing to happen as they would have appointed proper Admins that D&P mob were at it from day 1.

Hopefully BDO will unravel the whole rotten lot.


So Murray now claims the EBT "loans" were all repayable, he owes BDO a cool 6m, and wee Doddsy has a call on a 190k IOU. Parcel of rogues!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which would have been the best thing to happen as they would have appointed proper Admins that D&P mob were at it from day 1.

In what way?

[Famous5forever]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In what way?

They have been all in facour of Rangers interests if HMRC Had appointed these BDO Boys who have a reputation for being ruthless my guess is they would be donald ducked by now.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They have been all in facour of Rangers interests if HMRC Had appointed these BDO Boys who have a reputation for being ruthless my guess is they would be donald ducked by now.

But they are. The company is about to go into liquidation.

As for D&P's management of the administration, the jury is still out for me. BDO would have gone through the same process of trying to find a buyer for the club as a going concern. It's easy to be wise in hindsight, but back in February that was the obvious first step.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hopefully BDO will unravel the whole rotten lot.


So Murray now claims the EBT "loans" were all repayable, he owes BDO a cool 6m, and wee Doddsy has a call on a 190k IOU. Parcel of rogues!

He doesn't, though. The loans were from the Trusts, so if anyone is getting the money back it's them. RFC have no call on them...unless BDO can prove some sort of fraudulent activity involving RFC, the Trusts and the recipients of the loans.

That could take years, and I'm not sure there are enough funds left in RFC to pay for that sort of action.

[Bill Milne]

Murray's comments, together wither Dodds & McCoist, seem to be an attempt to forestall the inevitable hammer coming from BDO when Duff & Phelps finally put the oldco into liquidation. I understand that HMRC, via BDO, will be pursuing individuals to recover money for creditors. All those concerned from the relevant era, including Campbell Ogilvie, should, I feel, be very afraid.

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But they are. The company is about to go into liquidation.

As for D&P's management of the administration, the jury is still out for me. BDO would have gone through the same process of trying to find a buyer for the club as a going concern. It's easy to be wise in hindsight, but back in February that was the obvious first step.

A going concern would normally involve immediate downsizing the company and quick assessment of its future prospects. D&P laid off less than handful of staff and facilitated the gift of the assets for a song, when a break up and sell off would clearly have brought better returns for creditors. I agree with many others, that had a dispassionate Administrator been allowed in, they would have stripped the club right down and squeezed as much a possible out of the process for the creditors. Rangers knew that too.

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A going concern would normally involve immediate downsizing the company and quick assessment of its future prospects. D&P laid off less than handful of staff and facilitated the gift of the assets for a song, when a break up and sell off would clearly have brought better returns for creditors. I agree with many others, that had a dispassionate Administrator been allowed in, they would have stripped the club right down and squeezed as much a possible out of the process for the creditors. Rangers knew that too.

I've wondered this as well.....

Oldco should have been selling players during the last 2 windows and maybe, just maybe they would have survived all be it in a less succesful team for a while.... their problem was that they continued to chase Celtic when they knew they couldn't afford to.

When D&P came in I'm not sure what they could have done with the playing staff but I still believe they should have done something, pre-contract agreements or if agreeable to the player, sell to other leagues that were not closed for transfers etc. While downsizing the club, again, this might have been enough to keep Oldco's history inarguably intact (EBT's pending of course!) and may have made enough to get a CVA agreed.

[Hibs Class]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which would have been the best thing to happen as they would have appointed proper Admins that D&P mob were at it from day 1.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In what way?

I posted early in the administration that it seemed D&P were not acting in the interests of the creditors. From memory the first sign was their approval of the attempt to sign Daniel Cousin which IIRC was blocked by the SFA/SPL. They did minimal lay-offs and even if they were trying to preserve value by holding on to players who could attract a fee in the summer they could have laid off players who would have been out of contract. Not only did they not reduce the staff (playing or non-playing) by any meaningful degree, they continued to run the club for the remainder of the season at a significant loss which, coupled with the speed at which they racked up their own fees further reduced the amount available to the creditors.

Lastly, if they were then given the benefit of the doubt for trying to keep the club going to preserve value, they then shattered that argument by practically giving it away to Green for a value well below its break-up value. Once it was clear that they were not going to attract a decent sale price as a going concern then they should have allowed it to be broken up to maximise the creditors' return. That wouldn't have been popular with Rangers' support but that really shouldn't have been a consideration for D&P. IMHO.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A going concern would normally involve immediate downsizing the company and quick assessment of its future prospects. D&P laid off less than handful of staff and facilitated the gift of the assets for a song, when a break up and sell off would clearly have brought better returns for creditors. I agree with many others, that had a dispassionate Administrator been allowed in, they would have stripped the club right down and squeezed as much a possible out of the process for the creditors. Rangers knew that too.

This was all down to timing and this part of the [cough "alledged"] plan appears to have went well. Rangers, as they were, entered administration on 14th of February, two weeks after the transfer window closed meaning that none of the players could feasibly be sold even if D+P had wanted to. Fast forward and there is a bit of a stramash to get all the assetts transferred to Sevco and this is done on, or about, 15th June which, spookily, is two weeks before the next transfer window opens.

When the SPFA state that players registrations do not neccessarily transfer to Sevco Chuckie boy has something akin to a fit and threatens legal action. Even the players that were lined up by other clubs had their moves obstructed by the SFA and Southampton had/have to pay a fee for Steve Davis which, in reality, amounts to more than half the overall combined purchase price of Old Rangers Stadium and training complex. All this despite the company that held their contracts not in a position to field a team and have nowhere to play.

Dodds and Boumsong have confirmed, in Dodds case twice, that they recieved payment from Rangers football club, via an EBT trust fund, for their services as professional football players. Dodds even said, twice, that the tax was already deducted from the payment he recieved and, as Dodds appears appears too stupid to making this up, I tend to believe him.

That, Dave my man, is Tax Evasion and as such you will do well to avoid prison, I doubt it though. Mind the lube.

[Famous5forever]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murray's comments, together wither Dodds & McCoist, seem to be an attempt to forestall the inevitable hammer coming from BDO when Duff & Phelps finally put the oldco into liquidation. I understand that HMRC, via BDO, will be pursuing individuals to recover money for creditors. All those concerned from the relevant era, including Campbell Ogilvie, should, I feel, be very afraid.

This is good news if true however they have had so long to cover there tracks that i fear even BDO Will be lead on a wild goose chase.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A going concern would normally involve immediate downsizing the company and quick assessment of its future prospects. D&P laid off less than handful of staff and facilitated the gift of the assets for a song, when a break up and sell off would clearly have brought better returns for creditors. I agree with many others, that had a dispassionate Administrator been allowed in, they would have stripped the club right down and squeezed as much a possible out of the process for the creditors. Rangers knew that too.

The value of the company as a GC, though, lay in its playing staff. That was their opinion at the time, and mine as well. The administrators attempted to preserve that value by keeping the squad together, whilst at the same time reducing the costs substantially.

Where they went wrong, though, was in not recognising the extent to which they were to be mucked about by time-wasters. That is why, IMO, they were backed into the corner of the derisory offers for the CVA and the assets.