forlanssister

Mmmm Ok , I've been resisting change since we moved from Glasgow Green, it's been all downhill since....

No but they're the only ones who know what's what and who's who about the situation regarding RFC. Who do you think went line by line through Rangers books with Craig Whyte, Joe Spreadsheet from Misfile & Deadline CA Ltd or one of the current directors ? Who's been dealing with the UEFA crap, I.M. Ambulancechaser from Appeals R'Us Ltd or one of the current directors? Bollox, my view is that orderly evolution is preferable to revolution and when change comes it must be for the better rather than for it's own sake. I do not object to the entire board being replaced but think it would be foolish in the extreme to overthrow them en masse. Like when the Yanks thought they could cure all Iraqs ills by declaring all members of the Ba'ath Party persona non grata, then couldn't find anybody to run the power or sewage systems etc raging success that was eh?

I'm not arguing against the board being replaced just that it be done in a manner that puts the interests of the club first above the interests of any single individual.

Then you may end up with nobody who knows who's who and what's what at the SPL, the SFA, the SFL and UEFA. Changes should be for the better not just for changes sake.

Not 100% convinced that a "Night of the Long Knives" is the best approach, would prefer something more orderly.

But that was before he found out his Grandfather was in the IRA.

:blush::blush::blush:

The article is merely a very damp squid.

Good bear is Sheriff Lindsay Wood.

Think they are IIRC, carry quite a high coupon too.

No, I mean because for all intents and purposes MIH is now merely an LBG subsidiary, if they were to convert their 165 million convertible preference shares then Murrays shareholding will be reduced circa 7% of MIH. That would surely mean MIH and ergo LBG would've benefited greatly from a positive outcome of the tax case but were unconvinced by the chances of obtaining one.

I assume the board would be in constant contact with their advisers. I would expect HMRC to be using equally eminent counsel too. If Murray and LBG were confident of a positive outcome then I very much doubt they would have countenanced accepting �£1 If Whyte is correct in his assumption then I'll gladly doff my cap to him.

If he is correct then he has played a blinder but his optimism is not universally shared within the boardroom.

Am I correct in understanding if the tax case goes against us and Wavetower decide they would like their cira �£18 million back that they would be unable to do so via an administration but could do so via a liquidation? Also I'm led to believe we are the test case for approximately 20,000 similar EBTs, if so then I very much doubt HMRC would be willing to affect an accommodation as they would be setting a precedent would they not? If they're half as effective working for Rangers as they have been for Whyte then I'd welcome them with open arms.

Can you not just put up a decent argument against any of the points I've stated? I'll state once more counteract my posts by putting up a contrary argument and if you can prove that I am "talking crap" then I'll happily concede to your superior knowledge, if that simple request is beyond your comprehension then perhaps the internet is not the place for you.

What are these facts that you speak of ? As I've stated before dissect my statements and respond, and if you can prove me wrong on any point then I'll happily concede. It seems to me that all you can do is imply that I'm a tim then run away like a coward.

Yes tis better you scurry of before you make an even bigger arse of yourself. Yes or no answers too difficult for you?

"There's none so blind as those who will not see" There will be nobody more glad than I if everything in the garden turns out to be rosy, but to think all is well because all of a sudden we're in debt to someone other than LBG is simply the act of a fool.

I'm typing this slowly in the forlorn hope you may actually understand it. Instead of owing LBG circa �£18 million for the term loan we now owe circa �£18 million to Wavetower. Rangers now owe circa �£18 million to Wavetower, Wavetower does not owe anything to LBG. You do understand that ? A simple yes or no will suffice. Wavetower will have secured the monies owed to them by Rangers. Do you understand that?, again a simple yes or no will suffice. In exchange for a consideration of �£1 from Wavetower, Murray, MIH and LBG have absolved themselves of any liabilities regarding Rangers whilst Rangers now have liabilities to Wavetower of circa �£18 million and probably (though admittedly not 100% definitely) to HMRC of circa �£32 million plus penalties (which can range from 0% to 100%). You do understand this don't you?, again a simple yes or no will suffice. If the tax tribunal find in favour of HMRC and we are landed with a bill of circa �£50 million and if HMRC are insistent of their right of payment in full then my understanding is that the only way for Wavetower to get their money back is to liquidate Rangers as they would be entitled to payment before HMRC. Now I may be wrong in my understanding of the ranking of entitlement of Wavetower over HMRC. (Bluedell is far more qualified than I and he's more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong). Now back to Whytes �£1 bet, do you understand that �£1 is all Wavetower is risking ?(all other monies being secured) again a simple yes or no will suffice. Can you see the massive upside to Wavetower of the �£1 bet if Rangers wins the tax case ? Again a simple yes or no will suffice. The downside to Wavetower if we lose the tax case is the grand total is �£1, do you understand that? again a simple yes or no will suffice.

Of course the tax man never opts to liquidate companies does he? Whyte will have secured Wavetowers "loan", he however won't have secured his �£1.

Rangers are now in debt to Wavetower instead of LBG, that's what's changed. Rangers still owe the money, probably on more onerous terms than previously. If you seriously believe that CW has somehow absolved RFC from debt, then there are some people in the East End of London that would like to sell you a bridge or two. Of course there was a Plan B. A plan that just happened to be better option for Rangers but a poorer option for Murray and LBG. Drop the "you're a tim shite". If we were to lose the tax case and are liquidated and RFC cease to exist then what has CW lost ? The grand total of �£1 that is all.

The one thing about Whyte so far that has been very impressive so far is the PR machine that he has used it has quite simply been a stunning lesson in spin over substance, they've even managed to convince some people that Whyte is investing �£52million quid in RFC rather than �£1. They just raised �£65million of new money on the markets last week doubt they'll be going bust any-time soon.

Feel free to dissect it and respond to it pointing out which parts are bullshit.

The liabilities RFC face today are the same as they faced yesterday however the same cannot be said for Murray, MIH and LBG. The damage done to RFC was done long before Paul Murray ever sat on the board. CW has not and will not clear RFC's debt, he may have removed any potential exposure for LBG and lifted a millstone from round Murrays neck but RFC are still fully exposed. If CW had walked away the Plan B would have been implemented, Plan B only ever came about because of the potentially fatal flaws in Plan A. CW's �£1 was nothing more than a bet that we would win the tax case, if we lose CW loses nothing as he will have secured his debt (most probably against Ibrox) and will be a preferred creditor, if we win then he got the bargain of the century.

A few minutes after it appeared last night, don't know if it made the print edition.