Naive reaction to lawsuit is worrying for Rangers

Cleaving a path through the tangle of issues that have caused Rangers so much distress over the past week will bring a would-be seeker of truth to the depressing conclusion that, in football’s very own order of precedence, business is king.

At the risk of straining the analogy towards breaking point, hypocrisy has the rank of a duke, while such universally acknowledged merits as emotional attachment and unswerving allegiance to a particular club are to be found a long way down, among the lower orders.

If, however, this pile of vices and virtues carries the kind of odour that could fell a horse, it has surely been around long enough not to come as a shock to anyone who has spent more than ten minutes observing the protocols of the professional game.

In this context, the reaction of the Ibrox chairman, Craig Whyte, and that of many of the club’s followers (including, at least, the hierarchy of the Rangers Supporters’ Trust) to the legal action taken by the former chief executive, Martin Bain, betrays a naivete that should be something of a worry to those currently fretful of the possible consequences of Rangers’ financial predicament.

From whatever angle it is viewed, Bain’s pursuit of retribution over his treatment by Whyte represents an about-turn in his attitude to the former love of his life that, in an earlier age, would have been construed as a form of treason worthy of the block.

As recently as last spring, Bain was the voice of a beleaguered organisation, apparently besieged by prospective invaders, the threats ranging from creditors (HMRC in the vanguard) to those who would prosecute them for a virulent sectarianism among their supporters.

The chief executive was, at times, accused by outsiders of defending the indefensible, but he was at least presenting himself as Rangers’ champion, condemning those he perceived as enemies of “our club.” His actions then could be described as a kind of executive form of badge-kissing.

That level of dedication, though, seemed to evaporate within no time of this suspension by Whyte shortly after the new owner’s buy-out. Having resigned, Bain soon made it clear that he would be suing Rangers for a seven-figure sum.

In this regard, Bain has acted no differently from the average player. Whenever anyone hears or reads of a player talking of his concern for his club’s financial welfare or encounters a professional commentator (either in print or over the airwaves) promoting the line that a team’s form will be adversely affected by off-field difficulties, he may regard it as utter drivel.

The fact is that players, as a species, are quite impervious to others’ problems (including those of their own directors) until such time as they impinge on their territory. If their wages are not in the bank, the collective squeal will be picked up by sperm whales on the other side of the world. Until then, any tears they may appear to be shedding over their clubs’ difficulties would shame a crocodile.

Bain’s readiness, therefore, to take Rangers to court and to collude with his legal team on any tactic that will maximise his chances of winning his case (including the ring-fencing of £480,000 of the club’s money as insurance against his victory) could not possibly have shocked anyone with an adult appreciation of how the wheels of business turn.

Yet the ripostes from Whyte and the RST were, in places, so naïve as to be almost infantile. The Trust were sound enough in condemning Bain’s actions on the basis that, during the years of his employment at Ibrox, he had been handsomely remunerated. But their attempt at discrediting the former chief executive lurched towards the pathetic when they asserted that “if Martin Bain truly considers himself a Rangers fan, then he should drop his case and walk away.” Some of Whyte’s responses to Rangers’ exposure to attack have been breathtaking in their simplicity. He and his various spokespersons have expressed their “astonishment” that Bain should take what he considered to be “reprehensible” action against the club, reminding anyone who would listen that the issues with HMRC arose on the former CEO’s watch.

That the tax problems are the offspring of practices followed during the ownership of Sir David Murray and the occupation of the chief executive’s office by Bain has been public knowledge from the start and seems an impossibly weak platform from which to launch a counter-attack.

Whyte also whimpered to one reporter that Rangers had “enemies” and that there are “many people who do not want Rangers to succeed.” This is, of course, unarguable. In fact, there are thousands of them, and they are not exactly a secret society. They are otherwise known as “the fans of the other clubs in the SPL”.

But perhaps the most risible claim of all came from a person described in several papers as “a source close to Whyte”. This “source” questioned the timing of the decision by Lord Hodge in the Court of Session to ring-fence the £480,000 because there was the possibility of looming insolvency for Rangers. “This has clearly been done,” he or she said, “to embarrass the club in the build-up to the first Old Firm match of the season.”

It is impossible to believe that anyone of Whyte’s experience in business would subscribe to such nonsense. That the legal counsel of a plaintiff (Bain) would take action to coincide with the timing of a football match and, even less probably, that a Law Lord – the likeliest class of professional in Scotland to be unaware of the existence, far less the sporting significance, of the game – would go along with it, is a suggestion to curdle the brain.