Duff and Duffer trial

Mondraker

Well-Known Member
e728NIc.jpg

This is so comical. I remember anytime someone credible appeared, Burt and Ernie produced an American trucker as the preferred bid or an unknown Singaporean...each and every time.
 

blu

Well-Known Member
just seen this in the times.5,5m for rangers is a disgrace.some players were worth more than that.

A former Rangers administrator has insisted valuing the club brand was a "waste of money" after it emerged that it was effectively given away for nothing before being valued at £16m.


Paul Clark, who was one of the joint administrators of Rangers when the club financially imploded in 2012, has spoken out as he and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps are being made sued for £56.8m by Rangers oldco liquidators BDO which says their flawed cost-cutting strategy meant creditors lost millions from the handling of the club’s financial implosion.


The Court of Session has previously heard that the Rangers brand, which includes the ability to use the club’s name, trademarks and logos for financial gain, and is used in all its merchandising was effectively sold for nothing.
Administrators have admitted that they failed to get a valuation of the club brand before selling the Rangers business assets for just £5.5m to Charles Green’s Sevco consortium.
An assessment carried out by an independent finance expert on the day of the Sevco purchase and commissioned by the new owners put the value of the brand alone at £16m.

The administrators have said there idea was to present “a functioning working club” and to rescue it as a going concern so that it could be sold to prospective purchasers.
The action comes nine years after the Craig Whyte-controlled Rangers business fell into administration and then liquidation leaving thousands of unsecured creditors out of pocket, including more than 6000 loyal fans who bought £7.7m worth of debenture seats at Ibrox.
Mr Clark said he had been involved in several hundred insolvency matters during a 40 year career and could not recall engaging one valuation of a brand.
Andrew Young QC for Duff and Phelps said: "It might be said some of the insolvencies would not be of companies with particularly prominent or recognisable brands, but equally were some of these insolvent companies which might be described as having a recognised brand?"

Glasgow Times:

Mr Clark said: "I do recognise the point that of those several hundred very few would be what I would call high street names and they're widely known.
"But yes, although, for instance, I was not personally involved in it day to day, I haven't checked this for certainty but we we were involved in the administration of BHS (British Home Stores) and I am reasonably certain that we didn't conduct a brand valuation there.
"Now, it may be that some would say that was a brand that was towards the end of its sell by date.
"In my view, and in my experience... when you get someone, a professional person to value the assets it is an indication, the market determines value. To my mind, the brand valuation, would have been in my view, a waste of money because it wouldn't have actually told us anything. I say that accepting I am not a brand value expert."
Papers in the case reveal that while the Rangers assets were bought by Sevco for £5.5m, an independent fair value assessment to the company on the day of the purchase was put at £27.2m.
While just ten of the star players including striker Steven Naismith, goalkeeper Allan McGregor, midfielder Steven Davis, and defender Steven Whittaker were valued at £21.35m after the club went into insolvency - they ended up being bought for just £2.75m as part of Sevco’s £5.5m purchase. BDO’s representatives described that as “some way short”.
Glasgow Times:

Ibrox and Murray Park were snapped up for £1.5m in the deal, but a fair value assessment, carried out by an independent valuer was £6.5m.
But at the time of the purchase, there had been no licence to play football so the Ibrox and training facility valuation had been downgraded. A subsequent valuation priced the stadium and Murray Park at £80m.
Meanwhile Mr Whitehouse told the court that it was "absurd" to consider selling the club by getting rid of its "trophy players.
Kenny McBrearty QC for BDO suggested that the administrators should have sold players rather than just to secure wage cuts.
“Let me make clear the liquidators position to you Mr Whitehouse. It is that by making redundant playing and non playing staff, you could have achieved the same saving or more that you achieved with the wage reductions so that any player sales would have brought in additional funds - do you follow me," he asked.
Mr Whitehouse replied: “I disagree. it’s not my view.
“The only way you could have achieved that was to make the highest paid employees redundant.
“We would have absolutely hacked to pieces what was already a lean administrative and support cost basis and getting rid of a very high proportion of the playing squad and then sell what i call the ‘trophy players’ and be left with next to nothing in terms of quality players - for the purchaser to view that as attractive.. I think that’s absurd.”
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Can’t really be bothered with this now. Is there anything they can use this for to be detrimental to our club? Can they take assets off us if it’s proven we were undersold and the sale was illegal.
 

skorn

Well-Known Member
Actually ... this could be quite important imo.

From what I can see, the old entity that is currently still in the process of being liquidated owes about £51m.
IF BDO could successfully win such an amount (£56m+) then ...
the original entity would no longer be in debt
it could be cisted (stopped) from liquidation
it could be bought up by somebody at some value reflecting its historical nature and (probably) goodwill
it could then be brought back into the Rangers fold.

Pretty well finishing the Rangers-haters sevco howls.
 

Chris the Bandito

Well-Known Member
Karma says it would be nice if BDO won and then Duff&Phelps in turn sued Clark and Whitehouse for the cash they got off the Scottish Government.
 

Trueblueal

Well-Known Member
Actually ... this could be quite important imo.

From what I can see, the old entity that is currently still in the process of being liquidated owes about £51m.
IF BDO could successfully win such an amount (£56m+) then ...
the original entity would no longer be in debt
it could be cisted (stopped) from liquidation
it could be bought up by somebody at some value reflecting its historical nature and (probably) goodwill
it could then be brought back into the Rangers fold.

Pretty well finishing the Rangers-haters sevco howls.

But would this expose us to liability for any future legal challenges relating to old co matters?
 

Trueblueal

Well-Known Member
Yes, it probably would.

But I'm struggling to think of anything that hasn't already been dealt with through the courts already.

I'd love to see it happen but it does give me the fear. Expect the unexpected when it comes to us and the thieves that were involved
 

Sandbear

Well-Known Member
If Duff and Duffer had broken up the club and sold it piecemeal, we could if we were lucky be left with no training ground and renting Ibrox the trademarks could have been owned by someone else who would have coined it in. Yes they could have got more money for creditors but there is a good chance we would not have a club to support certainly not one we would recognise. So while BDO might ( doubt it) win this case we should be glad they were not the administrator.
 

BlueMeanie

Well-Known Member

Rangers given ‘short shrift’ by Nicola Sturgeon due to fears of bias, court hears​

The First Minister didn’t want the Scottish Government to intervene when the club was placed in administration it has been claimed





0_JS233524824.jpg

Rangers F.C


Nicola Sturgeon gave “short shrift" to a plea from financial experts to help Rangers during attempts to secure the club’s financial future, a court has heard.
David Whitehouse, 55, told the Court of Session today the First Minister didn’t want the Scottish Governmen t to intervene when the club was placed in administration in 2012.
The former administrator told lawyer Kenny McBrearty QC he and his colleagues approached Ms Sturgeon, before she became First Minister of Scotland.

He said Ms Sturgeon ruled out giving help to Rangers because of concerns about bias.

Mr Whitehouse said: “We got short shrift when we approached her. She said ‘we can’t be seen to be biased.’”
The managing director of financial services firm, Duff and Phelps, gave evidence for the second day at the court.
 

Centralbear

Well-Known Member
If Duff and Duffer had broken up the club and sold it piecemeal, we could if we were lucky be left with no training ground and renting Ibrox the trademarks could have been owned by someone else who would have coined it in. Yes they could have got more money for creditors but there is a good chance we would not have a club to support certainly not one we would recognise. So while BDO might ( doubt it) win this case we should be glad they were not the administrator.

You're right but it is ironic as they were Hearts administrators and as such fought tooth and nail to avoid selling off Tynecastle .

This, despite its location in Edinburgh having significantly more potential value compared to the eventual pittance accepted in their CVA.
 

ChildOfGod

Well-Known Member

Rangers given ‘short shrift’ by Nicola Sturgeon due to fears of bias, court hears​

The First Minister didn’t want the Scottish Government to intervene when the club was placed in administration it has been claimed





0_JS233524824.jpg

Rangers F.C


Nicola Sturgeon gave “short shrift" to a plea from financial experts to help Rangers during attempts to secure the club’s financial future, a court has heard.
David Whitehouse, 55, told the Court of Session today the First Minister didn’t want the Scottish Governmen t to intervene when the club was placed in administration in 2012.
The former administrator told lawyer Kenny McBrearty QC he and his colleagues approached Ms Sturgeon, before she became First Minister of Scotland.

He said Ms Sturgeon ruled out giving help to Rangers because of concerns about bias.

Mr Whitehouse said: “We got short shrift when we approached her. She said ‘we can’t be seen to be biased.’”
The managing director of financial services firm, Duff and Phelps, gave evidence for the second day at the court.
Not sure how it went from No Bias to Mischievous Prosecutions but hopefully time will tell All
 

monkey magic

Well-Known Member

Rangers given ‘short shrift’ by Nicola Sturgeon due to fears of bias, court hears​

The First Minister didn’t want the Scottish Government to intervene when the club was placed in administration it has been claimed





0_JS233524824.jpg

Rangers F.C


Nicola Sturgeon gave “short shrift" to a plea from financial experts to help Rangers during attempts to secure the club’s financial future, a court has heard.
David Whitehouse, 55, told the Court of Session today the First Minister didn’t want the Scottish Governmen t to intervene when the club was placed in administration in 2012.
The former administrator told lawyer Kenny McBrearty QC he and his colleagues approached Ms Sturgeon, before she became First Minister of Scotland.

He said Ms Sturgeon ruled out giving help to Rangers because of concerns about bias.

Mr Whitehouse said: “We got short shrift when we approached her. She said ‘we can’t be seen to be biased.’”
The managing director of financial services firm, Duff and Phelps, gave evidence for the second day at the court.

She doesn't care about showing bias now does she. ? Anything negative story about Rangers and she throws petrol onto the fire.
 

Captain_Buns

Well-Known Member
Actually ... this could be quite important imo.

From what I can see, the old entity that is currently still in the process of being liquidated owes about £51m.
IF BDO could successfully win such an amount (£56m+) then ...
the original entity would no longer be in debt
it could be cisted (stopped) from liquidation
it could be bought up by somebody at some value reflecting its historical nature and (probably) goodwill
it could then be brought back into the Rangers fold.

Pretty well finishing the Rangers-haters sevco howls.

I don’t think the debts owed by oldco are currently as much as £51million.

Even if BDO win £56million, I believe their fees for the liquidation have still to be taken into account.

Dave King spoke before about bringing Oldco & Newco together but I doubt it’ll happen.
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
I don’t think the debts owed by oldco are currently as much as £51million.

Even if BDO win £56million, I believe their fees for the liquidation have still to be taken into account.

Dave King spoke before about bringing Oldco & Newco together but I doubt it’ll happen.
Last I read the HMRC debt alone was at circa £64m - though they were still in the process of trying to negotiate this downwards. Link to last Creditors Report attached.

Liquidators fees are taken on a quarterly basis. In terms of litigation costs, the case against D&P is largely on a no win/no fee basis - same as when they took on Collyer Bristol for £25m. The ultimate fees for winning that case was over £5m, so if they win their will be a big chunk to come out for costs. Nevertheless, it would be a huge win for them and for Creditors.

Resurrecting the company, whilst theoretically possible, is pie in the sky.

 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
Didn't realise @mdingwall had testified at this hearing. Gets a mention in the article below. D&P were very dismissive of what the fans could bring to the table:

Part 1 (due to length)

A Rangers administrator said fans' attempts to be involved in the purchase of Rangers were "akin to herding cats" and had referred to one supporters' representative as a "c*ck".

David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps spoke out as liquidators of the club business accused him of giving no consideration to Ibrox or the training ground Murray Park being bought by a fan trust.

He said it was "not a reasonable judgement call" to break-up the club and sell off Ibrox, the training ground Murray Park and other property believing it was more valuable to sell it as a complete entity.
Mr Whitehouse and Paul Clark, who were joint administrators of Rangers appointed by Craig Whyte when the club he owned financially imploded in 2012, are being sued for £56.8m by Rangers oldco liquidators BDO which says their flawed cost-cutting strategy meant creditors lost millions from the handling of the club’s financial implosion.
Papers in the case revealed that while the Rangers assets were bought by the Charles Green Sevco consortium for £5.5m, an independent fair value assessment to the company on the day of the purchase was put at £27.2m.

The action comes nine years after the Craig Whyte-controlled Rangers business fell into administration and then liquidation leaving thousands of unsecured creditors out of pocket, including more than 6000 loyal fans who bought £7.7m worth of debenture seats at Ibrox.

BDO are suggesting that an ordinarily competent administrator acting with reasonable care would have researched a sale and leaseback of Rangers property and sought advice if accepting bids less than the break-up value of the club to get the best value for creditors.

But Mr Whitehouse says the strategy could be summed up in a comment he made at the time in which he said: "We've got to make sure that we have a blend of players that are capable of performing well on the pitch but also retain a business which is capable of attracting an investor."

Mr Whitehouse said while he regarded the fans as "passionate" they had been "very disruptive at times".

He knew that fans had put in place a support process which had 11,500 offers of support, but it did not amount to cash offers.

Asked about whether the administrators considered a sale and leaseback with a fans group involvement, he said: "I don't think we would have considered it. And we wouldn't have considered it a viable proposition to debate."

He questioned how the fans would have gone about crystallising that into a formal constitution, which would have produced an offer to buy Ibrox.

Kenny McBrearty QC for BDO questioned Mr Whitehouse's attitude to any fan involvement in the purchase of Rangers saying he had referred to one fans representative as a "c*ck".

"Might it fairly be said that it's reflective of an offhand and dismissive approach to the fans' representatives, do you agree with that," he asked.

Mr Whitehouse said: "This was at a time when there was a great deal of frustration I think in our minds over the level of influence which the fans were having on a process. In my view that influence, although well intentioned, was not of a positive nature.

Mr Whitehouse, a Duff and Phelps managing director and insolvency practitioner said there had been tensions which arose about how fans were able to fund raise cash.

"I remember one conversation for example where they were doing bucket collections outside of Ibrox and I said what if you raise a sum of money, who's going to own that investment. And they all looked at each other without any, any answer," he said.

Mr McBrearty said: "What I suggest is at the time, no consideration was given to the prospect of, for example, selling Ibrox or Murray Park to a fan trust, do you agree or disagree.

Mr Whitehouse said: "I disagree. I think the fans were very well meaning, but unco-ordinated and lacking in a core focus."

He said that they had a "disrupting influence" which was the Blue Knights consortium which was fronted by former director Paul Murray and included motoring tycoon Douglas Park, now club chairman and former Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy and the backing of Rangers director and then second highest shareholder Dave King.

He said they had said they were going to acquire the club and did not think any fans bid "would ever be a realistic prospect".

He added: "I don't think there was ever a discussion about selling Ibrox to the fans.

"There were discussions about the fans, investing in bids or supporting bids. But I don't believe there was ever a specific discussion around the fans, acquiring Ibrox, for example, and it's not a discussion we would have encouraged because we were aware of their difficulties in co-ordination and the very, very clear and obvious challenges, which would have arisen, had they tried to mount such a bid."

Mr McBrearty suggested that by reaching that view he had underestimated the fans potential and that faced with the prospect of losing their club, it was "perfectly feasible" that they would have come up with enough money and found sufficient organisation to buy Ibrox.

Mr Whitehouse said: "They definitely didn't think there was a prospect of them losing the club, because they were being reassured by the Blue Knights that they would ultimately succeed in their attempt to acquire the club.

He added: "I think we saw an email earlier in this evidence where there was some sort of support process put in place, and they had 11,500 offers of support, but not cash offers of support, well, how would they have gone about actually crystallising that into a formal constitution, whereby let's say they produced £5m to acquire Ibrox, what would have happened to the rents, who would have had what shares, what would have happened when people pass away.

"It was miles off of any sort of concept which would have been deliverable and to try and encourage the idea would have just further destabilised the bidding process."

He said they had never reached the position where they thought there was value in the break-up of the club for sale.

"If you're saying to me that in the circumstances of the closure of the club, the aggregate value of bits for the brand and the heritable property would have been greater than that which those bidders had on the table at the time of the conclusion of the bidding process, I find that quite a leap of faith, and I don't think that's a reasonable judgement call that an insolvency practitioner would have taken at that time."

After the Sevco consortium takeover, the Rangers Supporters Trust (RST) launched a campaign to allow fans to purchase a stake in the Ibrox club.

Club 1872 a group formed in May 2016 by the amalgamation of two supporter shareholder projects; Rangers First, and RST aimed to encourage fan representation at the club.

The group is now the sixth biggest shareholder in the club with 5.02% of the stock.

Mr McBrearty said: "There may have been bidders who were prepared to live with the idea of restructuring the club and paying a rent rather than having ownership of a stadium."

The former Rangers administrator responded: "In my career, which is sadly quite long now, I've never experienced a situation which has been so widely marketed and so visibly available for sale on a global level. So to speculate there may have been other bidders out there that would have come forward on a different basis is hindsight."

The BDO QC said: "It is one thing to say that something is widely marketed. But the point made is that you were the administrators, and you should have taken control of it. You should have obtained specialist property advice, you should have realised that sale and leaseback was a possibility, and therefore, you should have been putting, to those who were interested in the club, the possibility that you may hive off the heritable property and only sell what remained. This was a matter within your control, not simply for people in the market to come to you and make a suggestion. Do you follow me?

Mr Whitehouse said: "Well, I follow what the accusation is. We weren't just waiting for people in the market to come to us, we were proactively marketing the business, and my judgement or our judgement was that we were marketing it in the most appropriate way and taking account of feedback from bidders and understanding how they wanted to retain the fabric of the club as one entity."
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
Part 2:


Earlier in the case, Mark Dingwall, editor of the Follow Follow fanzine and who was at the time a spokesman for the Rangers Supporters Trust said that the fans would have been keen to make an offer for the whole of the company's business and assets had the opportunity been available.

He said in his statement to the hearing: "I have to say that some of us who have maybe been involved for a little bit longer took a more reflective view, which was that buying the club is only the start of your problem.

"This is because in order for Rangers to compete at the level that they competed over the previous 20 years during the reign of Sir David Murray, then the ability to pay wages is your major cost.

"To have sustained that Rangers really needed somebody to have the ability to pump in £5m a year on top of what was generated from season ticket sales and normal commercial activities.

"So, if you wanted the club to get back to what it was during the nine-in-a-row era under Sir David, to me there was always this need for funding that had to be filled by somebody like Dougie Park, Brian Kennedy or David King.

"Therefore what was probably needed was for the RST to be in some kind of partnership with these guys. But what we always said was that all the evidence of other football clubs tells you that with the size of our support, we should be able to raise anywhere between £10m and £15m from the fans.

 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Whatever the outcome of this (and of course it may be subject to appeal whatever happens), I hope we get a published written judgment. That might give us a detailed timeline of the conduct of the administration, which might help clarify some of the outstanding queries about happened.

It's an interesting case. BDO clearly know what they're doing, but a professional negligence case is going to need to show more than just that what D&P ultimately achieved was not with hindsight the best outcome for creditors.

They'll need to be able to show that at the point the relevant decisions were made, there was a standard practice, D&P departed from it, and the course D&P took was one which no competent administrator acting with reasonable care could have taken.

Basically the law recognises that there is room for two professionals to have a different view as to the best way of dealing with something without one of them necessarily being negligent. What D&P did would have to be outside of that sort of range of professional disagreement and something no one in their position could have done if acting competently.
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
Actually ... this could be quite important imo.

From what I can see, the old entity that is currently still in the process of being liquidated owes about £51m.
IF BDO could successfully win such an amount (£56m+) then ...
the original entity would no longer be in debt
it could be cisted (stopped) from liquidation
it could be bought up by somebody at some value reflecting its historical nature and (probably) goodwill
it could then be brought back into the Rangers fold.

Pretty well finishing the Rangers-haters sevco howls.

Looking at it in stark business terms it is hard to dispute the points that BDO is raising. However if they had been appointed and dealt with the administration in the same way that they are now claiming Duff & Phelps should have done, I genuinely dread to think what would have happened to Rangers. What took place after administration was bad, but looking at what BDO is saying they would have done is indeed very scary.
 

ChildOfGod

Well-Known Member
Looking at it in stark business terms it is hard to dispute the points that BDO is raising. However if they had been appointed and dealt with the administration in the same way that they are now claiming Duff & Phelps should have done, I genuinely dread to think what would have happened to Rangers. What took place after administration was bad, but looking at what BDO is saying they would have done is indeed very scary.
Yes . But let’s assume though that BDO were appointed would there have been improvements in the liabilities and a cleaner exit via someone who actually loved the club taking ownership at that point ?
I feel there were many people watching and waiting and there actions could have been different ?
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
Yes . But let’s assume though that BDO were appointed would there have been improvements in the liabilities and a cleaner exit via someone who actually loved the club taking ownership at that point ?
I feel there were many people watching and waiting and there actions could have been different ?

From what has come out of the hearing, BDO is claiming that they would have got rid of all of the club's assets on a piecemeal basis. Given that they have made that claim in a court of law it has to be accepted that that is what they would have done. It might be a moot point but if BDO had followed through on that plan we would not have got the club back.
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
From what has come out of the hearing, BDO is claiming that they would have got rid of all of the club's assets on a piecemeal basis. Given that they have made that claim in a court of law it has to be accepted that that is what they would have done. It might be a moot point but if BDO had followed through on that plan we would not have got the club back.
Its being pedantic but BDO are not saying that's what they would have done had they been Administrators. What they are saying is that, had D & P done that, Creditors would have been better off. The difference may be subtle but its important. BDO are suing D & P stating they could have taken a different line and that would have benefited Creditors more, or even saved the holding company. That is their role in investigating the entry into Liquidation of the holding company. The role of the Administrators is different, with their primary role being to try and keep the company operating as a going concern as their first objective. That's my understanding anyway.

As a Creditor myself, like many on here, I'm delighted to see BDO pursue this action. If they succeed then the Creditors pot will receive a significant boost. Does that mean I would have wanted this to be the line taken in 2012? Of course it doesn't. We'd have lost the Club in all likelihood. BDO have two goals here - firstly to boost the Creditors pot and secondly to make it evident that the route D & P took was not the only route available. Firstly, they highlighted that selling off the assets piecemeal would have raised more (disastrous for the Club) and now they've moved on to illustrate that selling some of the main players might have brought in enough cash to result in a different outcome. Neither is, necessarily, what BDO would have done had they been Administrators.
 

Derek1960

Well-Known Member
The amount of public money squandered on apologising and paying off the crooks, along with the public money sqaundered by HMRC in their pursuit of Rangers must be vastly greater than the inital sum that the club owed surely?
Yet it seems no one will be poor after all of this except you and me the tax payer.

I always thought a parliament in Scotland would be a waste of money. This is yet another example of it.

Complete shambles
 

johanfyfe

Active Member
Too many plots and sub plots going on here for me to understand what has gone on tbh. I could be 100% wrong but it seems to me the ones that look the most slippery are the ones that have benefited the most , aided by an incompetent judicial system.
 

EH47

Well-Known Member
The amount of public money squandered on apologising and paying off the crooks, along with the public money sqaundered by HMRC in their pursuit of Rangers must be vastly greater than the inital sum that the club owed surely?

I'd certainly guess so, but the damage inflicted on our club, the fans morale, and the damage to the Rangers brand and reputation rendered us almost completely powerless and left celtc free to getting 8.75 in a row, a quadruple treble and a few humiliating defeats over us.
For a few years they would have considered it public money well spent though ultimately their failure to get 10* in a row now renders it all almost completely meaningless.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
The claim by Wolffe lessons have been learned is laughable. Only a matter of weeks ago the club took legal action against individuals in the Scottish Govt, and in the media over how irresponsibly they behaved over fake social media videos. In particular accusations made by the then Justice Minister, Humza Yousless, had no thought for the consequences caused to others. When made aware of legal action taken against him the fud went on rant about being right, and no apology was needed. Lessons been learned, Yousless and his mob are too stupid for that.
 

AnglianBear

Well-Known Member
Makes you wonder why Craig Whyte saying no to £6m for Allan Mcgregor wasnt brought up at his trial, the fraudulent cnt.
 

rfc4ever

Well-Known Member
I'd certainly guess so, but the damage inflicted on our club, the fans morale, and the damage to the Rangers brand and reputation rendered us almost completely powerless and left celtc free to getting 8.75 in a row, a quadruple treble and a few humiliating defeats over us.
For a few years they would have considered it public money well spent though ultimately their failure to get 10* in a row now renders it all almost completely meaningless.
In my eyes they never achieved a ‘quadruple treble’ there winning goal against us in the league cup final should have been ruled out for the clearest offside you’ll ever see with at least 3 players offside and the Scottish cup 19/20 that they ‘won’ against hearts was a sham because of the ability to buy players before it not to mention the sheer corruption aside and then there is the league title that was handed to them over a zoom call so at best it’s a tainted ‘double treble’.
 
Last edited:

EH47

Well-Known Member
In my eyes they never achieved a ‘quadruple treble’ there winning goal against us in the league cup final should have been ruled out for the clearest offside you’ll ever see with at least 3 players offside and the Scottish cup 19/20 that they ‘won’ against hearts was a sham because of the ability to buy players before it not to mention the sheer corruption aside and then there is the league title that was handed to them to over a zoom call so at best it’s a tainted ‘double treble’.


I don't disagree but the record books will show different.
 

bustergonad

Well-Known Member

Rangers given ‘short shrift’ by Nicola Sturgeon due to fears of bias, court hears​

The First Minister didn’t want the Scottish Government to intervene when the club was placed in administration it has been claimed





0_JS233524824.jpg

Rangers F.C


Nicola Sturgeon gave “short shrift" to a plea from financial experts to help Rangers during attempts to secure the club’s financial future, a court has heard.
David Whitehouse, 55, told the Court of Session today the First Minister didn’t want the Scottish Governmen t to intervene when the club was placed in administration in 2012.
The former administrator told lawyer Kenny McBrearty QC he and his colleagues approached Ms Sturgeon, before she became First Minister of Scotland.

He said Ms Sturgeon ruled out giving help to Rangers because of concerns about bias.

Mr Whitehouse said: “We got short shrift when we approached her. She said ‘we can’t be seen to be biased.’”
The managing director of financial services firm, Duff and Phelps, gave evidence for the second day at the court.
Crap


Salmond wanted to see what could be done to help Rangers but was pretty much told by Spads,we would be toxic
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
Thanks for posting these Mark, good to follow from down south where this is receiving absolutely no attention at all.

(Although that latest Herald article is abysmally written IMO. Some of the sentences barely have structure, let along the article as a whole.)
 
Top