IT is that time of year again.
Craig Whyte finds April and May to be the months when the planets align and he appears in the Rangers story with a flash, bang and a considerable wallop. Two years ago he was walking up towards Ibrox to take the cheers of the crowd as he confirmed his ownership of Rangers, one year ago he was apparently passing on control of the club to Charles Green and Co - and now he has come back to haunt the club, plunging it into its biggest crisis since, well, the last one.
There are at least two outcomes for Whyte and Rangers. They could be called the dream scenario and the nightmare option for the club.
Rangers sources were last night understandably keen to parlay the dream scenario. This goes something along the lines of: "Move along. There is nothing to see here." The departure of the chief executive in this version is a little local difficulty that was unavoidable after tapes linking Green with Whyte, the P-word row and the increasing tensions within the club, particularly with the manager, Ally McCoist.
These optimists envisage a future when everything calms down, Green and others are safely ensconced in another land and Rangers are playing in the top division with European ambitions.
Whyte, they claim with some justification, always threatens to sue, never does and has an undeniable capacity for grievous mischief but no ability to bring the club down. Learned counsel have been consulted and the Whyte threat is limited, perhaps negligible.
However, the nightmare scenario was voiced last night in the unmistakeable tones of the City. What if Whyte has a claim on Rangers assets? What if Sevco 5088 Ltd is the true owner of such as Murray Park, Ibrox and that now celebrated car park? What if investors have plunged in and merely bought a name?
Preposterous? This would be the verdict from Ibrox where some state that any Whyte claim will have to be settled with Green and associates, not the club. However, the possibility of legal action from Whyte being declared valid is worrying some in the City with Rangers shares in their portfolio.
The impact on the share price would be obvious and Rangers again would be at the mercy of financial forces over which they have little control.
There is another scenario, however, and it falls between dream and nightmare. It is this: Green returns to England with his major shareholding which he can unload at will. The lock-in arrangement –whereby Rangers' substantial shareholders commit to holding shares for a specified time – seems to have been observed more in the breach than in the observance.
But what to do with Whyte? If his legal claim is considered at least viable, there would be a temptation to pay him money to go away, and quickly. How this would help the venture capitalist is hard to fathom at the moment because Ticketus would surely be interested in any increase in the funds available to Whyte.
Whyte this month was ordered to pay £18m to the finance firm after he lost a claim against him at the High Court in London. The firm provided nearly £27m to help Whyte buy Rangers. The businessman, who seems to have an already full diary, has until the end of next week to appeal.
The outcome, therefore, for Whyte may involve walking away from Rangers with cash. It is as certain as anything can be in this tangled web of a story that Green certainly will make money from a year in the increasingly bizarre world of Scottish football.
The English businessman, though, made two grievous errors. He underestimated the scale of scrutiny at Rangers. Incontinent in word and transparent in deed, Green became a caricature and was vulnerable if the tide turned against him.
This eventuality occurred when he took on Malcolm Murray, the chairman of the club. For a man who was praised for his game of business poker over the Rangers purchase, Green played his hand badly when trying to oust Murray. Institutional investors made their unease known as Murray remains. The subsequent cost-cutting at Ibrox not only caused tensions with McCoist but worried supporters.
And this is the nub of the matter. Whatever scenario plays out, whatever theory one attaches to the likely future of Rangers, the board has to retain the financial support of both institutional investors and the fans.
Green, after a sticky start, played bluntly to the supporters' sentiments, portraying himself as a bluff advocate of the Rangers case.
However, he could not survive any perceived close association with Whyte. The Scottish businessman is what is known as box office poison. Any suggestion that Whyte could or would profit from the sale of Rangers would be met by a communal reluctance to commit to season tickets.
Rangers this morning have no chief executive but a host of nervous investors and a supporter base that is increasingly frustrated and alarmed by events at the club.
The team will troop out in front of them this afternoon to play an Irn-Bru Third Division match with Peterhead. Green will not be there but can consider himself richer in both experience and in financial terms for his year on the front line.
The precise whereabouts of Whyte is unknown but his presence lingers at Ibrox.
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