Rangers could be heading for further protracted legal wrangles after representatives for disgraced owner Craig Whyte dismissed claims by the club's joint administrator he is "an irrelevance" with no secured creditor status.
Paul Clark, of Duff & Phelps, has claimed Whyte would have no bearing on any takeover as they were certain he had put no cash into the club and had no claim on any of its assets.
Effectively, Mr Clark claimed the administrators could take control of Whyte's majority shareholding and that if Rangers was liquidated he would receive no money.
There were also claims that the taxman has said he is prepared to cut a deal with Rangers on its liabilities, which could run as high as £70 million, if Whyte is removed from Ibrox.
Last night Whyte's spokesman said: "That's the administrator's interpretation. It's not necessarily the interpretation of Craig Whyte."
The spokesman said he would only respond to claims being made about conditions upon which HM Revenue and Customs would be reputedly willing to cut a deal if they were made by tax authorities.
If Whyte challenges the claims by Duff & Phelps over his ownership and status as a creditor, Rangers would become embroiled in another court saga.
The legal costs would have to be drawn from the cash pool keeping Rangers afloat.
Last week it emerged the administrators are to go to trial over a disputed £3.6m formerly held by Whyte's solicitors Collyer Bristow. A hearing has been set for March 30. Whyte claimed to be a secured creditor, making him first in line for the proceeds of the sale of assets, after paying off the club's £18m debt to Lloyds Bank when he bought the club in May.
Whyte has finally admitted funding the Lloyds payment with money borrowed from ticket agency Ticketus against future season sales. The joint administrator has said his secured creditor status is worthless.
Mr Clark said: "Craig Whyte has no rights to Ibrox or Murray Park. We've seen no evidence of any investment by Craig Whyte into Rangers. We can't see any monies he's paid in.
"I don't see him as the ongoing owner of RFC. We're in control of the process. In terms of his influence on the outcome, he has little or no relevance. In terms of Rangers' future, medium to long-term, he is absolutely irrelevant."
A Rangers source said: "We can't speculate on whether Craig Whyte will go to court over this, but the administrators have repeatedly said they don't see Craig Whyte being involved in the future of Rangers. The comments they've made at the weekend weren't made lightly."
The source said it was unlikely there would be confirmation from HMRC of a deal with Rangers if its Tax Tribunal finds the club is liable for the bill. The insider said a decision was due "some time around April".
Mr Clark said there was takeover interest from America and the Far East, with the deadline for bids on Friday. He appeared dismissive of the deal by the Blue Knights consortium headed by former director Paul Murray, fans' groups and Ticketus.
Claiming one interested party was doing its talking through the media, Mr Clark said:"You have other parties who have been quietly and slowly and diligently getting on with their business behind closed doors outside of the glare of the media, and we are taking them just as seriously as anybody who is on the front page of the newspapers.
"Don't be surprised if that owner isn't one of the people who is media-friendly."
Of the tax tribunal verdict, a Ticketus source said: "They want to protect their investment, but they're going over the numbers at the minute and are hopeful there could be a deal with HMRC."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article