Is there not a scenario in which Whyte ends up with the lot? It's reasonable to assume he has a secured loan to Rangers for 18 million, which is the bank debt he took over when he bought the club for a squid. That loan will be from some holding company or other. Since his loan is secured, he has first call on the assetts (the ground, the brand etc). Could he not change the ownership of the club to the said holding, and the name ever so subtlely, and then say that the tax question has nothing to do with the "new" Rangers? I read something akin to this on the BBC today, but the story seems to have gone. If this is indeed the case, then the law should be changed to stop people like Whyte pulling stunts like this.