Rangers takeover: Bill Miller sticks by business-first approach

BILL Miller’s interest in Rangers has so far met largely with a mixture of suspicion and hostility.

Almost all Rangers supporters who have voiced an opinion have sided with the Blue Knights consortium led by former director Paul Murray – understandably, given his evident commitment to doing what is best for the club.

The feeling among those who have been most sceptical is that Miller’s main aim in taking over Rangers – perhaps his only one – is to make a profit out of it. Compared to Murray’s apparent altruism, this business-like approach is seen as a bad thing.

The lengthy statement released in Miller’s name on Friday probably did not win the American entrepreneur many new friends. Even those who have become obsessed by the Rangers takeover saga must have felt fatigue set in long before they got to the end of it. And his insistence that the football authorities agree not to “punish” Rangers next season, as a precondition of going ahead with his purchase, has been subjected to some seriously adverse comment.

At the very least, that precondition will either have to be revised, or will mean that there is a further delay in Miller’s bid. The SPL are due to meet next Monday to vote on proposed new regulations for clubs in administration, and as things stand there is nothing on the table which takes into account the model he believes is best equipped to take Rangers out of administration.

But what if that sticking point can be overcome, as Miller appears to believe? Would there then be any merit in his bid, or would we be right to continue to dismiss it out of hand?

One point in Miller’s favour, which he and his advisers have not stressed nearly enough so far, is his attitude to Craig Whyte, the man who bought the Ibrox club from Sir David Murray last year and – despite last night being banned for life by the SFA from any involvement in Scottish football – remains the majority shareholder.

Miller is far from alone in his antipathy towards Whyte, but his approach is at least designed to carve out the former chairman – and to do the same to Ticketus, who are owed around £27million by Rangers in return for a loan against future season-ticket sales.

“Miller’s strategy effectively puts two fingers up to both Whyte and Ticketus,” one analyst said yesterday. “He aims to preserve Rangers’ assets in a new company, and have the administrators deal with the toxic side of the club. As well as preserving the heart of the club in an ‘incubator’, as he termed it, that is designed to ensure that neither Whyte nor Ticketus gets anything back.

“The debt, and Whyte’s shareholding, would be dealt with by the administrators in what remained of the club. They would aim to take that out of administration via a CVA [Company Voluntary Arrangement], and then merge it with Miller’s new company. Whyte would remain as a shareholder of the toxic part of the club, but his stake would have no practical use after the merger with the incubated company.

“Whyte and Ticketus caused the problem, Miller is saying. No way should they profit from this mess. He is asking: ‘If we can preserve the history of Rangers, would you be satisfied with the hybrid solution we are proposing? Or would you want a traditional CVA in which Whyte and Ticketus were remunerated?”

That approach, even if effective, will not find favour with everyone. It is widely accepted that Ticketus, a London-based company, acted in good faith when forwarding the money to Whyte, and that they therefore deserve to be dealt with as bona fide creditors.

That is one reason why Murray negotiated with them, and seemed to have reached agreement for them to join his consortium. The other reason, however, was a recognition that any attempt to carve Ticketus out could result in prolonged and costly legal action. Miller believes that his route will ensure there is no chance of the firm being able to take that legal action.

But whatever you think Ticketus deserve, there is another, more fundamental reason for siding with Miller – if, at least, his promises and calculations are correct.

He sees no contradiction between his business interests and those of Rangers. Indeed, he thinks they can be mutually beneficial. Besides offering a little over £11m to buy Rangers – much of which might well end up in the coffers of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs – Miller says he is prepared to invest £10m a year for the next three years at least to help the club get back on its feet.

Indeed, he not only says he will invest it, he thinks it is the minimum required. That figure of £10m is the approximate gap at present between expenditure and income, so that level of funding will be required to bridge that gap.

Miller has concluded, not unreasonably, that Rangers are in a mess at the moment. He thinks that, run properly, they can generate a decent amount of income: some can go back into the club, some can be paid to the shareholders, and everyone is happy.

He thinks Rangers in 2012 are in a similar position to the one Celtic were in shortly before Fergus McCann took over.

Miller is not promising anything as ambitious at Ibrox as McCann carried out during his time at Parkhead, but he is convinced that, now as then, football and business interests coincide.